Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 4.1 Public Involvement

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 303 

CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1 Public Involvement 

The management of undeveloped areas of the NFS has been a topic of ongoing 

discussion since the 1920s. In the past 10 years, several formal public processes have 

been initiated. These include the involvement of the public in developing the 2001 

Roadless Rule, the 2005 State Petition Rule, individual forest plan revisions, and most 

recently, the Idaho State Roadless Petition. Overall the public response represents two 

main points of view on natural resource management and decision-making regarding 

the management of inventoried roadless areas: 

An emphasis on environmental protection and preservation, and support for making 

decisions about roadless area management at the national level; 

An emphasis on responsible active management, and support for making decisions 

about roadless area management at the local level. 

2001 ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE (2001 ROADLESS RULE) 

The Forest Service received more than 360,000 individual responses, representing more 

than 500,000 comments, in response to its 1999 notice of intent to promulgate a rule. 

Close to 1.2 million responses were received by the Forest Service on the proposed 2001 

Roadless Rule and draft EIS during their comment period. More than a million of those 

responses were form letters initiated by national interest groups. Agency responses to 

comments on the draft EIS are contained in Agency Responses to Public Comments, Forest 

Service Roadless Area Conservation Final EIS (USDA, Forest Service 2000, volume 3). 

Responses in Volume 3 relevant to the final rule are summarized in the preamble to the 

final rule published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001 (66 FR 3244). 

2005 STATE PETITIONS RULE FOR INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA MANAGEMENT 

(STATE PETITIONS RULE) 

On May 4, 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture reaffirmed the Administration’s 

commitment to providing protection for inventoried roadless areas in NFS lands. 

However, acknowledging concerns raised by local communities, Tribes, and States 

affected by the 2001 Roadless Rule, the Secretary also indicated that the Department 

would fairly address those concerns by re-examining the rule with a responsible and 

balanced approach. 

On July 10, 2001, the Forest Service published an advanced notice of a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register (66 FR 35918) seeking public comment about how best to proceed 

with long-term protection and management of roadless areas. During the public 

comment period, which closed on September 11, 2001, the Forest Service received more 

than 726,000 responses. 
4.1 Public Involvement Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

304 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2004. Approximately 

1.8 million comments were received from a wide variety of respondents. Responses 

relevant to the final rule are summarized in the preamble to the final rule published in 

the Federal Register on May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25654). 

FOREST PLANNING

Public involvement has been extensive, from the development of the first generation of 

land management planning (forest planning) in the 1980s through subsequent revisions 

of those plans. Moreover, one of the key issues in each public involvement process has 

been the management of inventoried roadless areas. Local, regional, and national 

comments have been received during these extensive public processes. Forests revising 

their plans use a collaborative process for working with the public on the management 

of roadless areas. Five Idaho forests have completed revisions of their plans, three are in 

progress, and two have not initiated revision. 

IDAHO STATE PETITION

On June 23, 2005, the Governor of Idaho announced that the State would develop a 

petition pursuant to the State Petitions Rule. In that announcement, the Governor 

solicited the help of local units of government to invite local communities to develop 

(through a public process) specific recommendations for inventoried roadless areas in 

portions of the national forests within their counties. 

Following that announcement, local communities under the leadership of their 

respective county commissioners outlined a process for providing written 

recommendations to the Governor for review. Affected county commissioners held a 

series of public meetings to solicit public comment and develop their recommendations. 

Statewide, approximately 50 public meetings were held. To provide guidance and 

assistance in the process, a representative from either the Governor’s Office or the 

Governor’s Office of Species Conservation attended nearly every meeting. In addition 

to those meetings, the Governor’s staff explained the Governor’s vision for his local 

process during at least 10 additional meetings across the State. Because of the high 

volume of comments received, the county commissioners hired two independent 

contractors to compile submitted comments and prepare the commissioners’ final 

recommendations to the Governor. 

The State received comments or recommendations from 66 organizations, 30 counties, 

and 1,596 individuals. Some responses focused on individual roadless areas. Based on 

the comments submitted by the commissioners, individuals, and organizations, the 

Governor’s staff developed management recommendations for each individual roadless 

area for the Governor’s consideration. After development of the initial 

recommendations, the State engaged the Native American Tribes in Idaho, as fellow 

sovereigns, in discussions about these recommendations. The State of Idaho also 

contacted neighboring States to ensure inter-roadless area consistency. Based on the 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 4.1 Public Involvement

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 305 

information gathered, the Governor assigned the management emphasis and the uses 

that would be permissible or prohibited for each management area. 

The Governor’s Petition demonstrates substantial engagement with local units of 

government, tribal governments, and the public at large, and well represents those who 

know, live, work, and recreate on these lands. 

ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RACNAC) 

The RACNAC was chartered by the Secretary to provide a national perspective on 

individual State petitions regarding roadless area management. On November 29 and 

30, 2006, Governor James Risch presented the Idaho State Petition to the RACNAC. 

They also heard comments from other State and Forest Service officials, and nine 

members of the public, including one State-level organization and three national 

organizations. These public comments were transmitted to the Forest Service and 

considered in the development of this EIS. 

SCOPING 

A notice of intent to prepare an EIS on “Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest 

System Lands in Idaho” was published in the Federal Register, April 10, 2007 (68, FR 

17816). About 38,000 comments were received, of which 32,000 were form letters56, 

while the remaining letters consisted of original responses or form letters with 

additional original text. These comments were evaluated and summarized in a report 

called Summary of Public Comments, which is provided in the Scoping section of the 

project record. The summary analyzes the public’s responses specific to the Proposed 

Action, identifying significant concerns and issues. 

 

56 Form letters are five or more letters that contain identical text but are submitted by different people. 
4.2 List of Preparers Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

306 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

4.2 List of Preparers 

The following people were part of the Roadless Team that put together the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Idaho Roadless Rule. The people are listed 

alphabetically by last name. Also included is the person’s title, place of employment, 

education, work experience, and role in the analysis process. 

INTERDISCIPLINARY EIS TEAM

Timothy Abing 

Position: Physical Scientist, Intermountain Region. 

Education: BS, mining engineering, University of Wisconsin. 

Experience: 2.5 years with the Forest Service as a physical scientist, 24 years with Bureau of 

Land Management as a mining engineer and petroleum engineer. 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared the minerals specialist report. 

Megan Lyons Bogle 

Position: Environmental Coordinator, Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

Education: B.S., environmental studies, Ohio University 

Experience: 27 years with the Forest Service as program manager for wilderness, developed 

recreation, special uses and small sales timber programs. 

Contribution: Helped coordinate and prepare appendices; supported specialists with 

background research and analysis. 

Fred Bower 

Position: Regional Transportation Planner, Region 1, Regional Office. 

Education: B.S., civil engineering, California State University, Chico. 

Experience: 15 years with the Forest Service as regional transportation planner, 4 years 

transportation analyst, 5 years forest transportation planner, 4 years district 

engineering. 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared roads specialist report. 

Ann Carlson 

Position: Aquatic Ecologist, Northern Region. 

Education: B.S., aquatic ecosystem assessment and management, Western Washington 

University. 

 M.S., aquatic ecology, Utah State University. 

Experience: 14 years with the Forest Service as the forest fisheries program manager, Tahoe 

National Forest; 4 years as the Northern Region aquatic ecologist. Expertise in 

aquatic monitoring, aquatic ecosystem disturbance and recovery, forest 

planning, and large-scale assessments. 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared biologist specialist report and biological evaluation. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 4.2 List of Preparers

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 307 

Danielle Chi 

Position: Wildlife Program Leader, Intermountain Region. 

Education: B.S., psychology, University of California, Davis. 

 M.A., psychology, San Diego State University. 

 Ph.D., wildlife biology, Utah State University. 

Experience: 2 years with the Forest Service as regional wildlife biologist; 51⁄2 years with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife biologist specializing in listed species 

and wetlands; 3–4 years with several environmental consulting firms as a 

consulting wildlife biologist. 

Contribution: Coordinated and helped prepare the section on terrestrial wildlife species, 

particularly the effects analysis. 

Joan E Dickerson 

Position: Environmental Coordinator, Northern Region. 

Education: B.S., forest management, University of Idaho. 

Experience: 25 years with the Forest Service in planning, appeals, and litigation. 

Contribution: Coordinated and help prepare the draft EIS. 

Kim Foiles 

Position: GIS analyst, Region 1, Regional Office. 

Education: B.S., wildlife biology, Colorado State University. 

Experience: 17 years with the Forest Service in GIS. 

Contribution: Coordinated and helped prepare the GIS mapping and analysis of fisheries and 

wildlife data. 

Krista Gebert 

Position: Regional Economist, Northern Region (120-day-detail), Economist Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 

Education: B.A., economics, University of Montana. 

M.A., economics, University of Montana. 

Experience: 10 years with the Forest Service as an economist for the Rocky Mountain 

Research Station; 11⁄2 years with the Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research, University of Montana, as an economist. 

Contribution: Helped coordinate and prepare the social economic specialist report, including 

sections on revenue-sharing, economic dependency, demographics, social, and 

economic environment.

Kathleen Geier-Hayes

Position: Fire Ecologist, Boise National Forest. 

Education: B.S., fire ecology, Boise State University. 

 M.S., forest resources, University of Idaho. 

Experience: 18 years with the Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, as biological 

technician, forester, and research forester; 10 years Boise National Forest as fire 

ecologist. 
4.2 List of Preparers Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

308 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Contribution: Coordinated and help prepare the fire and fuels management section including 

fire regime condition class and risk of wildfire to wildland-urban interface and 

municipal watersheds. 

Bradley J Gilbert 

Position: Idaho Roadless Team Leader, Intermountain Region. 

Education: B.S., mathematics, Colorado State University. 

 M.S., Natural Resource Management, Colorado State University. 

Experience: 29 years with the Forest Service in a variety of planning and management 

positions. 

Contribution: Project team leader. 

Suzanne Johnson 

Position: GIS Specialist, Intermountain Regional Office. 

Education: B.S., forest management, Utah State University. 

Experience: 22 years with the Forest Service; 5 years in forest inventory work; 17 years GIS 

work. 

Contribution: GIS analyst. 

Dale Kanen 

Position: Regional Tribal Relations Specialist, Northern and Intermountain Regions. 

Education: B.S., agricultural engineering, 

Experience: 33 years with the Forest Service; 4 years in road location and design, 11 years as 

fisheries enhancement engineer, 5 years as Federal subsistence program 

manager in Alaska, 9 years as district ranger, 3 years as director of the office of 

tribal relations in the Washington Office, 1 year as regional tribal relations 

specialist. 

Contribution: Tribal consultation plan. 

Kenneth Karkula 

Position: NEPA Specialist, Washington Office. 

Education: B.S., wildlife biology, 

 Post graduate work, forestry; Northern Arizona University. 

Experience: 28 years with the Forest Service as district resource staff, forest recreation staff 

officer, national recreation special use program manger, and NEPA specialist. 

Contribution: NEPA procedures oversight, draft EIS liaison to the Washington Office, draft 

EIS liaison to the rule-writing team. 

Karryl Krieger 

Position: Supervisory Forest Planner, Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

Education: B.S., aquatic resources, Sheldon Jackson College. 

Experience: 18 years with the Forest Service as fisheries biologist and forest planner. 

Contribution: Assistant NEPA specialist. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 4.2 List of Preparers

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 309 

Cynthia H. Manning 

Position: Regional Social Scientist, Northern Region. 

Education: B.A., anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. 

 M.A., anthropology, University of Montana. 

Graduate courses, University of Montana, College of Forestry and 

Conservation. 

Experience: 29 years with the Forest Service; 13 years as archaeologist, 16 years as social 

scientist. 

Contribution: Helped coordinate and prepare social and economics specialist report. 

Tom Martin 

Position: Regional Silviculturist, Intermountain Region. 

Education: B.S., forest management science, Colorado State University. 

Continuing Education, forest ecology and silviculture (CEFES XI). 

Experience: 29 years with the Forest Service as a silviculturist 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared forest management report, including forest 

vegetation, timber harvest/cutting, forest health, noxious weeds, and climate 

change. 

Greg McNamee 

Position: Visual Information Specialist/ GIS SCEP, Intermountain Region, Regional 

Office. 

Education: B.F.A., Miami University. 

Currently Enrolled, applied gis certification, University of Utah. 

Experience: 7 months with the Forest Service as GIS SCEP. 

Contribution: Helped prepare GIS analysis and mapping.

Chris Miller 

Position: Economist and Content Analysis Specialist, WO, Content Analysis Team 

Education: Ph.D., environmental economics, University of Rhode Island. 

Experience: 3 years with the Forest Service as program analyst and economist; 6 years with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an economist. 

Contribution: Coordinated/served as contracting office representative for content analysis; 

prepared regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Michael Niccolucci 

Position: Regional Economist, Region 1, Regional Office. 

Education: B.A., economics, University of Montana. 

 M.A., economics, University of Montana. 

Experience: 25 years with the Forest Service as an economist in Research and Development 

and in National Forest System positions. 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared employment and labor income estimates for the 

economics section. 
4.2 List of Preparers Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

310 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Marynell Oechsner 

Position: Wildlife Biologist, TEAMS Enterprise.

Education: B.S., biology, University of Wisconsin. 

Experience: 29 years of Federal Service, primarily with the Forest Service, as biological 

technician with the North Central Forest Experiment Station and district 

wildlife biologist for the Northern, Intermountain, and Eastern Regions; also 

served as environmental specialist with the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Contribution: Helped coordinate and prepare terrestrial wildlife section including TES and 

management indicator species. 

Joey Pearson 

Position: Administrative Management Assistant, Boise National Forest. 

Education: Borah High School, Boise, ID. 

Experience: 16 years with the Forest Service, as administrative assistant in personnel and 

assistant to the forest supervisor, Payette National Forest; as forest plan 

revision assistant, SW Idaho Ecogroup; and as forest FOIA coordinator, 

planning, appeals and litigation, Boise National Forest. 

Contribution: Organized and prepared official project record. 

Brant Peterson 

Position: Recreation Specialist, Payette National Forest. 

Education: B.S., forestry, Utah State University. 

Experience: 13 years with the Forest Service, in engineering and recreation. 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared the recreation and special uses specialist report. 

Teresa Prendusi 

Position: Regional Botanist, Intermountain Region. 

Education: B.S., biology, Humboldt State University and Sonoma State University. 

Experience: 16 years with the Forest Service as regional botanist (11 years in the 

Intermountain Region, 5 years in the Southwestern Region); 4 years with the 

Bureau of Land Management as district botanist (Bakersfield, CA), seasonal 

botanist (Pt. Reyes National Seashore), botanist (Susanville, CA, Price, UT, and 

Dutch elm disease program, Sonoma, CA); XX years with Jones and Stokes on 

botanical projects in Klamath Mountains in Northern CA. 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared TEPCS plants specialists report. 

William G. Reed 

Position: Regional Heritage Program Leader, Region 4, Regional Office 

Education: B.A., anthropology, Fort Lewis College. 

 M.A., anthropology, Idaho State University. 

Post-graduate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of 

Nevada, Reno. 

Experience: 30 years with the Forest Service, in cultural resource management; 4 years with 

San Juan National Forest, 5 years with Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 4.2 List of Preparers

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 311 

17 years with Boise National Forest 4 years with the Intermountain Region, 

Regional Office. 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared cultural resources section

Dan Schlender 

Position: Landscape Architect, Boise National Forest. 

Education: B.S., landscape architecture, University of Wisconsin. 

Experience: 29 years with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, as 

landscape architect. 

Contribution: Helped coordinate and prepare scenic environment analysis. 

Steve Shelly 

Position: Regional Botanist, Northern Region. 

Education: B.S., botany, Miami University, Ohio. 

 M.S., Botany, Oregon State University. 

Experience: 12 years with the Forest Service as botanist; 10 years with the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program as botanist; 11⁄2 years with the Bureau of Land Management 

as botanist. 

Contribution: Helped coordinate and prepare TES vegetation section. 

Bruce Sims 

Position: Regional Hydrologist, Northern Region. 

Education: M.S., watershed management, University of Arizona. 

 M.Ed., geography, University of Arizona. 

 B.S., secondary education, University of Texas, El Paso. 

Experience: 28 years with the Forest Service as hydrologist; 2 years with the University of 

Arizona as research assistant; 3 years with the Smithsonian Institution 

Environmental Program, as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Philippines. 

Contribution: Coordinated and prepared the soil, water, and air sections. 

Keith Stockmann 

Position: Economist, Northern Region. 

Education: B.A., economics, Colby College. 

 M.S., environmental studies, University Montana. 

 Ph.D., forestry (applied wildland economics), University Montana, College of 

Forestry and Conservation. 

Experience: 9 years with the Forest Service; 7 years as economist/SCEP and 2 seasons as 

wilderness ranger/leave no trace presenter, Lolo National Forest. 

Contribution: Helped coordinate and prepare social economic specialist report. 

Dan White 

Position: Cartographer, Intermountain Region. 

Education: B.S., geography, Weber State University. 
4.2 List of Preparers Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

312 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Experience: 19 years with the Forest Service as cartographer. 

Contribution: Helped prepare GIS analysis and mapping, TESP, airsheds, original roadless 

area maps. 

Elaine Waterbury 

Position: Coop Fire Specialist, Southwestern Region. 

Education: B.S., forestry, Humboldt State University. 

 Continuing Education, Pacific Northwest Region Silviculture Institute XV 

Experience: 22 years with the Forest Service in Oregon and New Mexico as coop fire 

specialist, coop forestry, reforestation forester, NEPA interdisciplinary team 

leader, silviculturist. 

Contribution: Helped coordinate and prepare appendices, supported specialists with 

background research. 

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EIS AND RULE

Bill Supulski, Washington Office. 

Andy Brunelle, Intermountain Region (R4), Boise National Forest. 

Frank Roth, Intermountain Region (R4), Regional Office. 

Julia Riber, Northern Region (R1), Regional Office. 

Ken Karkula, Washington Office. 

Pam Gardiner, Northern Region (R1), Regional Office. 

Randy Welsh, Intermountain Region (R4), Regional Office. 

Richard J Cook, Washington Office. 

Karen Liu, Washington Office. 

FOREST SERVICE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL FOREST COORDINATORS

The following Forest Service employees were the primary contacts between the 

Roadless Team and field units. They coordinated data responses and internal reviews of 

the draft EIS. 

Barbara Schuster, Intermountain Region (R4), Regional Office. 

Tom Rhode, Northern Region (R1), Regional Office. 

Boyd C. Hartwig, Intermountain Region (R4), Payette National Forest. 

Chris Ryan, Northern Region (R1), Regional Office. 

Christine Bradbury, Northern Region (R1), Clearwater National Forest. 

David R. Olson, Intermountain Region (R4), Boise National Forest. 

Erin S. O’Connor, Intermountain Region (R4), Regional Office. 

Ihor Mereszczak, Northern Region (R1), Clearwater National Forest. 

Keith Simila, Intermountain Region (R4), Regional Office. 

Linda A Clark, Northern Region (R1), Idaho-Panhandle National Forest. 

Lyle E. Powers, Intermountain Region (R4), Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

Melany I Glossa, Northern Region (R1), Nez Perce National Forest. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 4.2 List of Preparers

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 313 

Patricia H Anderson Soucek, Intermountain Region (R4), Payette National Forest. 

Robbin Redman, Intermountain Region (R4), Caribou-Targhee National Forest. 

Robert Mickelsen, Intermountain Region (R4), Caribou-Targhee National Forest. 

Sharon LaBrecque, Intermountain Region (R4), Sawtooth National Forest. 

INTERAGENCY TEAM

Jim Caswell, Director of BLM, formerly administrator of the Idaho Office of Species 

Conservation. 

David Hensley, counsel to the Governor of Idaho. 

Tom Perry, counsel to the Idaho Office of Species Conservation. 
4.3 Agencies and Tribes Consulted and Others Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

314 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

4.3 Agencies and Tribes Consulted and Others Contacted 

The Idaho Roadless Team either met with, contacted, or received input from the 

following Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; and non-Forest Service persons 

during the development of the EIS. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (NOAA) and the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), have oversight responsibilities for implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Informal consultation and conferencing on the 

proposed rule have begun with frequent discussions among Forest Service, FWS and 

NMFS biologists. The Agency intends to prepare a biological assessment on the 

proposed rule and informally consult with the FWS and NOAA. 

On September 20, 2007 the State of Idaho and the Forest Service met with the Idaho 

Council on Indian Affairs and gave a joint overview presentation on the history of the 

Idaho Roadless Petition and the Draft EIS associated with development of the Idaho 

Roadless Rule. A commitment was made by the State of Idaho and the Forest Service to 

meet with each Tribe to discuss in more detail the Idaho Roadless Rule prior to the 

release of the Draft EIS. These meetings have been taking place during the months of 

October and November, 2007. Formal consultation will occur prior to release of the 

final EIS. 

AGENCIES AND TRIBES THAT WERE CONSULTED

Boise National Forest, Intermountain Region. 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Intermountain Region. 

Clearwater National Forest, Intermountain Region. 

Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Northern Region. 

Nez Perce National Forest, Northern Region. 

Payette National Forest, Intermountain Region. 

Salmon-Challis National Forest, Intermountain Region. 

Sawtooth National Forest, Intermountain Region. 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries, David Mabe and Bill Lind. 

State of Idaho, Department of Fish and Game. 

State of Idaho, Governors Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Regional Office. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Regional Office 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ted Koch. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe 

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

Nez Perce Tribe 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 4.3 Agencies and Tribes Consulted and Others 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 315 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE CONTACTED

Bob Fick, Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor. 

Bruce B. Ackerman, Ph.D., biometrician, Wildlife Bureau, Idaho Fish and Game. 

Pat Raino, Division of Transportation Planning and Programming, Idaho Transportation 

Department. 

David Colandner, Planning Services Section, Idaho Transportation Department. 

Steve Cox, Idaho Department of Agriculture (noxious weed data layers). 

Richard Warnick, RSAC, U.S. Forest Service (forest risk data layers). 

Joy Roberts, Forest Health Protection, U.S. Forest Service (insect and disease information). 

Larry DeBlander, Forest Inventory and Analysis, U.S. Forest Service. 

Ken Anderson, Vegetation Management, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 

Jim Morrison, IREMCG staff assistant, U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region. 

Marti Bridges, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 

Russ Lafayette, U.S. Forest Service, Eastern Region. 
4.4 Distribution of the DEIS Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

316 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

4.4 Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

This draft EIS has been distributed to individuals who submitted substantive comments 

during scoping and to those who specifically requested a copy of the entire set of 

documents. In addition, copies of the draft EIS have been sent to the following Federal 

agencies, federally recognized Tribes, State and local governments, and organizations 

representing a wide range of views regarding roadless area management. 

A complete list of all recipients of the draft EIS is maintained in the project record and is 

available upon request. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Agriculture, U.S. Department of 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Policy and Planning Division, Office of Civil Rights 

Rural Utilities Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

National Agricultural Library 

Commerce, U.S. Department of (DOC) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Habitat Conservationists Division 

Northwest Region 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Defense, U.S. Department of 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

U.S. Air Force Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Northwestern Division South Pacific Division 

Office of Chief of Navy Operations, Environmental Protection Division 

Energy, U.S. Department of 

Office of Environmental Compliance 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section 

EIS Review Coordinators: Region X 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 4.4 Distribution of the DEIS 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 317 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Housing and Urban Development, U.S. 

Department of 

Environmental Officers: Seattle, WA 

Interior, U.S. Department of the 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Bureau of Land Management 

Idaho State Office 

National Park Service 

Pacific West Region 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

Northwest Power Planning Council 

Transportation, U.S. Department of 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Environmental Division 

Federal Aviation Administration: Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Highway Administration 

Regional Administrator: Western Region 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Transportation and Regulatory Affairs 

Research and Special Program Administration 

U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Impact Branch 

Congressional delegations 

State Governors 

Idaho 

Montana 

Nevada 

Oregon 

Utah 

Washington 

Idaho State agencies 

Department of Lands 

Department of Transportation 

Fish and Game management 

Office of Species Conservation 

Office of Energy 
4.4 Distribution of the DEIS Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

318 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Federally recognized tribes 

Forest Service offices 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS Index 

Index 319 

INDEX

2

2001 Roadless Rule .... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 32, 35, 39, 40, 

41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 

58, 59, 60, 62, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80, 90, 93, 95, 98, 

101, 104, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 116, 120, 121, 

130, 134, 135, 143, 144, 146, 150, 157, 158, 163, 

172, 173, 174, 193, 194, 209, 210, 211, 221, 222, 

225, 230, 234, 235, 239, 242, 247, 248, 251, 254, 

255, 259, 263, 264, 271, 275, 289, 290, 291, 297, 

301, 327 

3

303(d) listed streams.......14, 66, 157, 158, 159, 160 

A

abandoned mines........................115, 145, 146, 147 

aboriginal territory ...............................................55 

access .... 3, 12, 16, 23, 29, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 53, 

56, 57, 64, 68, 79, 82, 83, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 98, 

101, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 

125, 126, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142, 144, 145, 146, 

150, 153, 157, 158, 161, 170, 171, 175, 176, 181, 

183, 194, 197, 198, 200, 206, 208, 210, 216, 233, 

235, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 247, 249, 250, 252, 

258, 259, 261, 264, 269, 274, 277, 278, 280, 289, 

291, 295, 299, 325, 341, 347 

air resources...... 15, 35, 67, 149, 159, 161, 163, 164, 

165, 171, 207, 270, 274, 276, 278, 280, 297, 298, 

299, 311, 329, 330, 344 

all terrain vehicles.........................................57, 241 

alternatives .... 3, 2, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 

31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 53, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 

68, 71, 73, 77, 79, 83, 84, 89, 93, 95, 96, 102, 106, 

113, 116, 120, 122, 123, 125, 134, 146, 149, 150, 

155, 170, 176, 177, 193, 206, 209, 210, 217, 223, 

225, 229, 233, 234, 241, 247, 250, 257, 258, 262, 

264, 271, 274, 275, 280, 293, 296, 297, 326, 330 

American Indians ...............................................265 

aquatic species....... 15, 67, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 

184, 185, 186, 190, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 

217, 218 

at-risk communities..........................50, 78, 92, 110 

B

Backcountry/Restoration .3, 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 

15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 28, 29, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 

49, 50, 51, 54, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 

91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 108, 109, 110, 111, 121, 

122, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 

150, 151, 152, 153, 158, 160, 161, 163, 173, 174, 

175, 176, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 211, 212, 213, 

214, 215, 216, 217, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 

235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 248, 249, 

250, 252, 254, 259, 260, 261, 264, 265, 274, 275, 

292, 294, 295, 297, 298, 325 

Best Management Practices ..95, 96, 115, 149, 155, 

159, 190, 191, 258, 342 

biological diversity ....15, 67, 74, 94, 115, 177, 180, 

184, 187, 189, 197, 199, 204, 211, 219, 220, 221, 

222, 278, 281, 325, 330, 340, 343, 348 

Boise National Forest ......75, 81, 82, 119, 127, 128, 

138, 142, 151, 153, 160, 161, 174, 176, 184, 196, 

198, 204, 213, 216, 227, 229, 236, 237, 238, 248, 

249, 250, 252, 259, 261, 279, 285, 292, 295, 305, 

310, 311, 312, 314, 346 

Boulder-White Clouds ......17, 59, 69, 75, 246, 251, 

252, 253 

Bureau of Economic Analysis ..266, 268, 286, 289, 

290, 292, 295, 338 

C

Caribou National Forest..75, 82, 83, 119, 122, 126, 

130, 132, 135, 136, 138, 140, 152, 158, 160, 175, 

192, 197, 198, 201, 204, 214, 216, 229, 237, 242, 

252, 253, 262, 283, 292, 342, 347 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest....... 81, 82, 122, 

126, 127, 130, 133, 134, 139, 167, 168, 196, 198, 

209, 211, 213, 214, 216, 225, 226, 227, 228, 236, 

237, 249, 253, 259, 261, 279, 285, 289, 290, 294, 

297, 306, 313, 314 

Central Idaho Economic Development and 

Recreation Act ..................................59, 246, 332 

Challis National Forest..59, 75, 119, 128, 184, 187, 

197, 202, 204, 211, 214, 240, 243, 252, 279, 285, 

308, 312, 314 

channel morphology ..................................190, 191 

Clean Water Act. 28, 42, 49, 54, 115, 145, 146, 149, 

153 

clearcutting ....................................................90, 234 

Clearwater National Forest ......48, 56, 59, 75, 119, 

167, 181, 189, 197, 201, 204, 214, 240, 243, 251, 

252, 260, 272, 279, 285, 312, 314, 343, 347 

climate change...... 11, 63, 84, 87, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 

219, 274, 309, 335, 340, 344, 345, 352 

coal......................................................13, 65, 81, 126 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe.............................55, 263, 312 

collaborative environment.........................266, 276 

commodity values ..............282, 297, 298, 299, 300 
Index Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

320 Index 

common variety minerals..9, 27, 29, 46, 47, 48, 50 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 14, 28, 42, 49, 

66, 145, 146, 147 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

................................................................28, 42, 49 

connectivity ......... 190, 191, 194, 218, 220, 221, 325 

conservation measures.................................53, 176 

consultation ..... 19, 71, 178, 257, 264, 265, 308, 314 

Council on Environmental Quality ............35, 316 

cultural properties ................................37, 256, 329 

D

decommissioning...20, 72, 112, 115, 120, 121, 157, 

159, 165, 255, 289, 290, 292, 294, 295, 296 

developed recreation.16, 17, 68, 69, 231, 238, 239, 

240, 241, 243, 306 

discretionary mineral activities8, 9, 19, 26, 31, 35, 

45, 46, 54, 60, 71, 75, 76, 77, 123, 149, 177, 194, 

196, 197, 208, 211, 214, 223, 231, 235, 236, 248, 

249, 251, 275, 294 

dispersed recreation ....16, 17, 36, 68, 69, 231, 232, 

233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 244 

E

ecological integrity .......................6, 27, 40, 47, 178 

economic impact analysis..................................296 

ecosystem health.....36, 94, 100, 211, 269, 280, 282 

Endangered Species Act ...... 53, 54, 115, 166, 167, 

177, 181, 182, 183, 197, 210, 314, 326 

endemic................................................167, 168, 178 

energy minerals.............................................38, 124 

environmental consequences .....21, 149, 166, 177, 

230, 231, 328 

environmental impact statement........................35 

Environmental Protection Agency ......21, 39, 153, 

281, 309, 314, 316, 349, 352 

F

Federal Register ... 4, 32, 33, 34, 301, 302, 303, 344, 

345, 346, 347, 350, 351 

fire.... 5, 9, 12, 27, 28, 37, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 64, 

76, 77, 78, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 

99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 

109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 156, 159, 163, 

172, 199, 207, 208, 211, 217, 218, 219, 239, 274, 

307, 308, 312, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 332, 334, 

335, 336, 337, 340, 343, 344, 345, 348, 349, 352 

fire ecology ......................................................5, 307 

fishing.... 16, 17, 36, 68, 69, 231, 233, 235, 236, 238, 

240, 241, 242, 260, 264, 273, 278, 283, 287 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974................................58, 114 

forest health .. 5, 6, 11, 27, 28, 40, 47, 48, 49, 50, 63, 

78, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 175, 197, 214, 

222, 274, 284, 309, 325, 326, 328, 331, 346, 347 

Forest Plan Special Areas....6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 18, 30, 

40, 44, 45, 64, 66, 67, 70, 91, 111, 121, 137, 141, 

158, 173, 195, 235, 236, 239, 242, 243 

forest plan 6, 7, 8, 17, 22, 30, 32, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 

45, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 69, 76, 78, 79, 93, 

106, 114, 118, 121, 136, 137, 138, 139, 146, 195, 

196, 211, 214, 224, 225, 227, 228, 241, 254, 283, 

300 

forest-dependent communities ...........................38 

fragmentation..... 115, 170, 171, 190, 206, 207, 208, 

210, 220, 221, 281, 334, 338, 341, 342 

Frank Church-River of No Return............246, 250 

fuel management ................................................336 

fuels .... 11, 37, 44, 55, 56, 63, 78, 84, 85, 89, 90, 91, 

92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 

111, 113, 155, 156, 164, 173, 175, 191, 206, 211, 

222, 223, 227, 228, 237, 254, 274, 284, 308, 326, 

327, 332, 336, 342, 350, 351 

G

General Forest, Rangeland and Grassland...6, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 40, 44, 45, 51, 52, 

53, 54, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 91, 92, 

93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 109, 110, 111, 121, 122, 137, 

138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 150, 151, 

152, 158, 160, 161, 163, 173, 174, 175, 195, 196, 

197, 198, 199, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 

224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 235, 236, 237, 239, 

240, 242, 243, 248, 249, 254, 255, 259, 260, 261, 

262, 264, 265, 274, 275, 291, 292, 294, 297, 298, 

299 

General Mining Law of 1872 ....7, 9, 27, 29, 43, 46, 

47, 48, 50, 56, 124 

geological and paleontological resources........125 

geospatial information systems ......60, 76, 77, 87, 

118, 130, 166, 167, 305, 306, 307, 310, 332, 335 

geothermal...... 13, 17, 52, 56, 65, 69, 81, 82, 95, 96, 

122, 124, 127, 128, 129, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 

142, 151, 152, 153, 158, 160, 161, 174, 175, 176, 

196, 198, 210, 213, 216, 227, 229, 230, 235, 236, 

237, 238, 248, 249, 250, 259, 261, 283, 292, 294, 

295, 298, 299, 343, 351, 352 

global warming ...........................................219, 342 

Gospel Hump ......................................................246 

grazing.... 9, 46, 75, 94, 100, 115, 218, 219, 224, 233 

grizzly bears ................................164, 265, 335, 352 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS Index 

Index 321 

H

Healthy Forests Initiative .37, 47, 49, 93, 100, 101, 

113, 165, 176, 229, 262, 265, 300, 350 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act.... 37, 44, 47, 49, 

50, 93, 100, 101, 104, 106, 110, 113, 165, 176, 

229, 262, 265, 300, 350 

Hells Canyon....... 181, 182, 184, 202, 213, 215, 246 

hunting...... 16, 36, 68, 200, 231, 233, 235, 240, 241, 

242, 264, 278, 283, 287, 343 

I

Idaho Panhandle National Forest....48, 56, 59, 75, 

119, 167, 184, 189, 201, 202, 204, 212, 215, 237, 

250, 251, 253, 260, 279, 283, 285, 314, 340 

Idaho Roadless Areas..3, 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 

24, 25, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 51, 53, 

54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 71, 73, 74, 75, 

76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 91, 92, 

93, 94, 95, 98, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 

112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 

125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 

137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 

148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 

159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 

170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 

181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 

194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 

204, 205, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 

218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 228, 230, 

231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 

242, 243, 244, 247, 248, 250, 254, 255, 256, 257, 

259, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 269, 270, 271, 273, 

274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 282, 283, 289, 

291, 292, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 329 

Idaho Roadless Rule..3, 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 21, 23, 24, 

25, 26, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 54, 

55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80, 91, 92, 

93, 96, 99, 101, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 120, 

122, 123, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147, 150, 

152, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 174, 175, 176, 195, 

197, 198, 214, 215, 216, 222, 226, 227, 228, 229, 

230, 234, 236, 237, 238, 240, 243, 248, 249, 251, 

252, 254, 255, 260, 261, 264, 265, 266, 273, 275, 

276, 289, 294, 295, 296, 298, 299, 306, 314, 327 

imminent threat ......28, 42, 49, 50, 78, 92, 110, 211 

IMPLAN.......................286, 290, 293, 295, 327, 340 

Inland Native Fish Strategy....... 53, 164, 176, 181, 

195, 196, 197, 265, 300, 349 

insect and disease ..3, 23, 44, 50, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 

91, 92, 93, 99, 110, 208, 315, 328, 345 

Interim Strategy for Managing Anadromous 

Fish-Producing Watersheds ..53, 164, 176, 181, 

195, 196, 197, 265, 300, 350 

invasive species.......95, 96, 100, 179, 217, 221, 347 

issues ...... 4, 5, 7, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41, 54, 61, 93, 263, 

271, 285, 302, 303, 342 

J

Jobs............................................20, 72, 291, 294, 296 

K

known phosphate lease areas...130, 132, 133, 138, 

139 

Kootenai National Forest.....75, 268, 335, 337, 343 

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho .............................263, 314 

L

labor income ...... 286, 287, 288, 290, 291, 293, 294, 

295, 296, 309 

landscape character ............................223, 224, 330 

landslides .....................147, 149, 150, 159, 218, 223 

leasable minerals....41, 52, 56, 65, 80, 82, 124, 126, 

134, 136, 140, 191, 208, 261, 264 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trails....... 48, 

260, 264 

lifestyles ...............................266, 270, 272, 273, 274 

locatable minerals ..9, 12, 27, 29, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, 

46, 56, 64, 79, 80, 82, 124, 125, 191, 208 

logging..... 55, 90, 115, 155, 178, 207, 261, 272, 325, 

327, 332, 337, 352 

lynx ............... 201, 207, 208, 212, 214, 342, 345, 351 

M

Mallard Larkins.. 17, 48, 59, 69, 197, 252, 253, 260, 

261 

management direction ....3, 7, 8, 23, 28, 30, 35, 37, 

41, 43, 44, 45, 53, 54, 59, 60, 73, 92, 96, 114, 123, 

164, 195, 197, 214, 226, 228, 244, 247, 260, 265, 

270, 297, 345 

management indicator species .......177, 189, 196, 

197, 203, 204, 212, 214, 215, 310 

management prescription...6, 7, 15, 16, 19, 40, 43, 

67, 68, 71, 91, 95, 98, 109, 112, 121, 136, 137, 

138, 139, 144, 146, 147, 151, 158, 160, 164, 173, 

195, 196, 211, 213, 226, 227, 230, 235, 236, 239, 

242, 243, 248, 250, 254, 255, 259, 264, 291, 292, 

327, 328 

mining . 13, 14, 15, 19, 30, 51, 56, 65, 66, 67, 71, 80, 

82, 94, 115, 117, 125, 126, 130, 132, 134, 139, 

142, 150, 153, 157, 158, 161, 163, 172, 178, 191, 

192, 196, 208, 209, 212, 215, 218, 224, 225, 227, 

230, 233, 239, 247, 257, 258, 265, 272, 276, 283, 
Index Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

322 Index 

287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 296, 297, 298, 

306, 332, 338 

mitigation.... 15, 19, 67, 71, 145, 150, 157, 160, 170, 

193, 197, 258, 259 

Montana ...... 21, 183, 246, 260, 261, 269, 307, 309, 

311, 317, 337, 340, 344, 345, 349, 352 

motorized recreation ..........................244, 274, 275 

municipal water supply systems....50, 78, 92, 110 

municipal watershed.....36, 54, 101, 106, 111, 156, 

308 

N

National Environmental Policy Act ..3, 21, 39, 53, 

61, 115, 123, 139, 256, 308, 312, 344, 345 

National Fire Plan..37, 93, 100, 101, 104, 113, 165, 

176, 229, 262, 265, 300, 349 

National Forest Management Act.......................58 

National Forest System lands.....10, 22, 23, 31, 32, 

36, 56, 58, 62, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87, 94, 

114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 

126, 127, 128, 130, 135, 136, 143, 145, 147, 153, 

155, 166, 167, 179, 181, 186, 217, 220, 221, 223, 

231, 233, 239, 241, 244, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 

268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 275, 278, 280, 281, 

282, 283, 284, 299, 300, 301, 329, 327, 328, 344 

National Historic Preservation Act ..................256 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act .............................................257 

Nevada .................................127, 183, 310, 317, 349 

Nez Perce National Forest ....48, 56, 182, 260, 272, 

284, 312, 314, 343 

Nez Perce Tribe...........................................263, 314 

Nimiipuu................................................48, 260, 261 

No Action..... 7, 31,41, 53, 90, 95, 98, 107, 112, 150, 

157, 172, 209, 221, 225, 230, 234, 239, 242, 247, 

251, 254, 259, 264, 289, 297 

non-commodity values ......282, 297, 298, 299, 300 

non-native species ..............171, 174, 200, 219, 222 

Notice of Intent .................................32, 34, 61, 266 

noxious weeds...... 11, 63, 94, 95, 96, 171, 309, 328, 

329, 337 

O

off highway vehicles..232, 234, 241, 279, 325, 326, 

328, 329 

oil and gas...... 80, 81, 82, 114, 122, 126, 134, 135, 

136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 248, 249, 283, 341, 342, 

350, 352 

Oil Pollution Act ...............................28, 42, 49, 146 

Oregon... 53, 181, 261, 280, 311, 312, 317, 333, 334, 

349, 350, 352 

outfitters and guides ..................................240, 242 

P

Payette National Forest.......75, 119, 138, 180, 182, 

184, 187, 202, 204, 213, 215, 237, 252, 268, 279, 

285, 310, 311, 313, 314 

payments in lieu of tax.......................................285 

Petition .. 3, 1, 3, 6, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 

41, 43, 55, 58, 61, 77, 263, 301, 302, 303, 314, 

325, 340, 342, 344 

phosphate.. 13, 16, 17, 29, 50, 56, 65, 68, 69, 75, 81, 

83, 122, 124, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 

138, 139, 142, 150, 151, 152, 157, 158, 159, 160, 

161, 172, 174, 175, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 209, 

210, 213, 216, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 

234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 242, 247, 248, 249, 254, 

255, 258, 259, 261, 262, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 

294, 296, 297, 298, 338, 351, 352 

plant species166, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 

338, 344 

pollutants .....................................................163, 325 

prescribed fire ...... 90, 100, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 

110, 111, 211, 328, 331, 334, 344 

Primitive..... 3, 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 27, 

28, 36, 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 59, 

62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 

109, 110, 111, 121, 122, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 

144, 146, 150, 152, 153, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 

173, 174, 175, 176, 195, 197, 198, 213, 215, 216, 

226, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238, 

239, 240, 242, 243, 248, 249, 251, 253, 254, 259, 

260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 279, 294, 295, 297, 298, 

326, 328, 329, 330 

primitive recreation..............................54, 261, 297 

projections..... 19, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 93, 108, 

121, 122, 123, 151, 152, 157, 159, 160, 194, 196, 

247, 248, 249, 265, 294, 298, 299, 300, 343 

Proposed Action .. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 

31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 57, 

58, 59, 60, 73, 77, 92, 96, 99, 110, 112, 114, 116, 

122, 139, 144, 146, 147, 152, 160, 164, 174, 197, 

214, 222, 227, 230, 236, 240, 243, 249, 251, 254, 

260, 265, 294, 298, 303 

public comment ...... 3, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 61, 146, 

266, 271, 301, 302, 303 

public drinking water.....................36, 55, 297, 329 

public health and safety...................28, 29, 49, 118 

public involvement.......29, 33, 51, 56, 61, 123, 302 

public meetings.......................33, 61, 271, 273, 302 

R

reasonably foreseeable ....13, 16, 17, 19, 65, 68, 69, 

71, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 93, 99, 120, 123, 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS Index 

Index 323 

126, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 142, 150, 

151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 159, 160, 161, 165, 172, 

174, 176, 193, 194, 209, 219, 220, 225, 230, 234, 

239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 247, 248, 249, 254, 255, 

258, 262, 289, 290, 292, 294, 300, 331, 342 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ..231, 232, 233, 

234, 238, 239, 241, 242, 244, 326, 328, 329, 330, 

331, 349 

reference landscapes.............................36, 297, 329 

road construction. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 

17, 19, 26, 27, 29, 31, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 

47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 

81, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 101, 102, 

107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120, 

121, 122, 123, 125, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 

140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 

151, 152, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 171, 

172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 191, 192, 193, 194, 

195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 

212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 221, 222, 223, 225, 

226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 

238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 

252, 254, 255, 258, 259, 261, 262, 264, 265, 274, 

275, 287, 289, 291, 292, 294, 296, 297, 298 

road construction and reconstruction...13, 14, 27, 

29, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 57, 60, 65, 66, 71, 76, 

80, 82, 89, 90, 92, 93, 114, 116, 120, 122, 142, 

144, 150, 152, 160, 172, 173, 195, 210, 211, 212, 

217, 226, 234, 235, 243, 258, 261 

road decommissioning.......112, 120, 289, 292, 294 

Roaded Natural.. 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 

326, 329 

roadless area boundaries .............43, 45, 58, 60, 76 

Roadless Area Conservation National Advisory 

Committee...... 3, 1, 3, 6, 8, 22, 23, 24, 34, 40, 45, 

303, 341, 342 

roadless characteristics .....3, 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20, 

23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 35, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 

55, 71, 72, 76, 92, 110, 111, 197, 210, 214, 219, 

235, 241, 242, 243, 250, 264, 275 

rulemaking......... 22, 51, 61, 263, 269, 340, 346, 347 

S

sacred sites.............................37, 257, 264, 265, 329 

salable minerals......41, 44, 46, 66, 80, 83, 124, 143, 

144, 145, 208, 191, 250, 283 

salmon ..... 53, 54, 178, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 189, 

218, 219, 233, 260, 325, 333, 350, 351 

Salmon National Forest...75, 81, 82, 119, 127, 128, 

138, 142, 151, 153, 160, 161, 174, 176, 187, 196, 

198, 202, 204, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 227, 229, 

236, 238, 248, 250, 260, 261, 279, 285, 292, 295, 

308, 312, 314 

Sawtooth National Forest .....59, 75, 119, 138, 167, 

183, 184, 187, 202, 204, 211, 213, 214, 215, 237, 

246, 250, 252, 253, 279, 283, 285, 313, 314 

scenic integrity ...... 19, 71, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 

228, 229, 230, 330 

scenic quality.... 19, 36, 71, 108, 223, 224, 226, 227, 

228, 229, 230, 297, 298, 299, 330 

scoping ............... 5, 35, 39, 53, 61, 76, 123, 314, 349 

sediment.. 56, 94, 128, 159, 177, 178, 179, 190, 191, 

192, 218, 335 

Selway-Bitterroot ................................246, 249, 250 

semi-primitive motorized...36, 232, 233, 234, 235, 

237, 238, 241, 242, 244, 324, 329, 330 

semi-primitive non-motorized...36, 231, 232, 233, 

238, 240, 241, 324, 330 

sensitive soils...........................14, 66, 149, 151, 152 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes..........................263, 315 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes..............................263, 315 

significant issues ...................................................35 

significant risk..... 27, 28, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 78, 92, 

110 

ski area .............................17, 69, 241, 242, 243, 342 

snowmobiles........................................233, 244, 328 

Special Areas of Historic and Tribal Significance

... 3, 1, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 24, 28, 40, 48, 54, 55, 59, 

62, 66, 67, 70, 91, 96, 98, 99, 110, 111, 122, 139, 

140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 150, 158, 160, 163, 174, 

195, 197, 198, 216, 228, 236, 240, 243, 248, 249, 

253, 254, 260, 265, 294, 298 

special interest areas.......................8, 30, 37, 44, 45 

special uses ........ 17, 38, 69, 115, 231, 306, 310, 348 

species diversity..........................178, 199, 217, 325 

species richness .. 184, 187, 189, 194, 196, 204, 205, 

212 

State of Idaho.... 3, 21, 22, 23, 33, 61, 73, 74, 77, 84, 

94, 116, 149, 155, 159, 178, 203, 229, 251, 263, 

267, 271, 276, 302, 314, 325, 333, 342 

stewardship .... 3, 1, 8, 22, 24, 45, 92, 120, 164, 172, 

175, 194, 209, 210, 211, 214, 269 

strongholds... 6, 27, 28, 36, 40, 47, 48, 54, 177, 180, 

187, 188, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 220, 

221, 281 

surface drinking water..14, 66, 106, 108, 109, 111, 

154, 155, 158, 160 

T

Targhee National Forest ...59, 75, 81, 82, 119, 122, 

126, 127, 130, 132, 134, 136, 139, 140, 151, 152, 

159, 160, 168, 174, 175, 196, 198, 202, 204, 213, 
Index Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

324 Index 

214, 215, 216, 227, 229, 236, 237, 253, 259, 262, 

292, 297, 306, 313, 314, 341, 347, 350 

temporary road .... 29, 44, 56, 89, 90, 114, 115, 120, 

121, 122, 146, 159, 160, 195, 197, 212, 227, 233, 

236, 237, 238, 242, 243, 331 

terrestrial species ......207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 

216, 218 

themes .... 3, 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 24, 26, 40, 41, 43, 

45, 52, 53, 54, 60, 62, 64, 66, 73, 76, 91, 92, 93, 

95, 98, 99, 102, 110, 121, 122, 137, 139, 141, 142, 

144, 147, 152, 158, 159, 160, 164, 168, 174, 175, 

197, 198, 212, 214, 216, 223, 226, 228, 229, 230, 

235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 248, 249, 

254, 259, 260, 262, 264, 265, 274, 294, 298 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species...74, 

177, 178, 195, 197, 202, 204, 210, 211, 212, 213, 

214, 215, 220, 221, 222, 310, 311 

Threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or 

sensitive species .............................................311 

timber cutting .... 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 26, 

28, 31, 35, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 

59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 

79, 86, 90, 91, 92, 93, 101, 107, 110, 111, 121, 

122, 149, 153, 156, 157, 158, 160, 164, 165, 172, 

173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 

196, 197, 199, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 

214, 217, 221, 222, 223, 226, 228, 229, 231, 234, 

235, 236, 237, 238, 242, 243, 247, 248, 249, 251, 

254, 255, 261, 262, 264, 265, 274, 275, 276, 277, 

283, 289, 291, 294, 296, 297, 298 

timber harvest .... 15, 28, 42, 49, 55, 67, 78, 79, 85, 

86, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 100, 101, 111, 115, 119, 

120, 155, 156, 178, 194, 207, 210, 211, 218, 220, 

247, 248, 258, 265, 286, 291, 293, 294, 296, 297, 

298, 299, 300, 309, 325, 331, 341, 343 

tourism .................................256, 260, 262, 270, 280 

trails ..... 57, 115, 116, 123, 155, 171, 232, 260, 273, 

326 

Tribes..... 3, 23, 32, 33, 104, 153, 178, 257, 263, 264, 

265, 301, 302, 314, 315, 316 

trout . 53, 54, 178, 181, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 

193, 196, 198, 219, 233, 329, 332, 351, 352 

U

uncharacteristic wildland fire ..101, 107, 108, 110, 

111, 113, 248 

unwanted wildland fire ...... 12, 64, 101, 107, 110, 

111, 113, 228, 332 

Utah . 74, 80, 135, 137, 140, 266, 306, 307, 308, 309, 

310, 317, 343, 345 

V

values and beliefs........................................266, 268 

W

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest ..75, 119, 167, 

182, 184, 197, 204, 211, 214, 240, 243, 314 

Washington... 53, 181, 268, 271, 284, 306, 308, 312, 

314, 317, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 340, 341, 346, 

347, 349, 350, 352 

water quality .... 54, 55, 94, 115, 153, 155, 177, 190, 

191, 218, 297, 337 

watershed...... 55, 149, 153, 155, 156, 173, 175, 180, 

187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 268, 281, 311, 334, 

336, 337, 339, 342 

Wild Land Recreation .3, 1, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 

24, 26, 40, 44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 62, 66, 

67, 69, 70, 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 109, 110, 111, 122, 

137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 150, 158, 160, 

163, 164, 173, 174, 195, 197, 198, 213, 215, 216, 

226, 228, 235, 236, 239, 240, 242, 243, 248, 249, 

251, 252, 254, 259, 260, 264, 265, 294, 298 

wilderness.... 3, 7, 17, 18, 23, 26, 36, 43, 44, 46, 52, 

54, 59, 69, 70, 73, 118, 161, 164, 179, 219, 220, 

233, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 

254, 255, 268, 269, 273, 278, 281, 291, 297, 306, 

311, 326, 327, 332, 338, 340 349 

wildland fire . 3, 9, 12, 23, 27, 28, 37, 41, 46, 47, 48, 

49, 50, 55, 64, 78, 84, 85, 92, 100, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 156, 

159, 163, 164, 172, 194, 199, 208, 211, 217, 223, 

227, 228, 248, 308, 326, 327, 331, 332, 334, 336, 

337, 349, 352 

Wildland Urban Interface.......12, 55, 64, 100, 101, 

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 331, 332 

Winegar Hole ................................................59, 251 

wolves ..................................................................335 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS Glossary 

Glossary 325 

GLOSSARY

Term Definition 

Active management Management approach in which humans actively manipulate ecosystems through timber 

harvesting and thinning to improve forest health and to reduce fire hazard. 

Adfluvial fish Fish that migrate between lakes and rivers or streams. 

Anandromous fish Fish that hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, mature there, and return to fresh water 

to reproduce; for example, salmon and steelhead. 

Authorized roads Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System (NFS) lands that are 

determined to be needed for motor vehicle access, such as State roads, county roads, 

privately owned roads, NFS roads, and roads authorized by the Forest Service that are 

intended for long-term use. 

Backcountry (1) The State of Idaho Petition descriptive theme. (2) A generic term that refers to areas that 

are relatively unmodified and usually accessible only by foot, horse, watercraft, or offhighway vehicle (OHV). 

Best management 

practices 

A practice or usually a combination of practices that are determined by a State or a 

designated planning agency to be the most effective and practicable means (including 

technological, economic, and institutional considerations) of controlling point and nonpoint 

source pollutants at levels compatible with environmental quality goals. 

Biological diversity The variety and abundance of species, their genetic composition, their communities, and the 

ecosystems and landscapes of which they are a part. As used in this document, biodiversity 

refers to native biological diversity; therefore, increases in species diversity resulting from 

the introduction of nonnative species would not constitute an increase in biodiversity. 

Biological stronghold An area that supports all major life-history forms of a species that were historically found 

within that area, with stable or increasing population numbers at levels not substantially 

diminished from their historical size or density. 

Cable logging The transport of logs from the stump to a landing and stationary yarder using winch-driven 

cables to which the logs are attached. 

Carrying capacity A measure used to signify the optimum use that the area can accommodate without having 

unacceptable degradation of resources or undesirable social interaction, in accordance with 

specified standards usually found in the land and resource management plan. 

Clearcutting Cutting essentially all trees in a given area, which produces a fully exposed microclimate for 

the development of a new age class. See even-aged management. 

Community (1) A group of species of plants and/or animals living and interacting at a particular time 

and place. (2) A group of people residing in the same place and under the same 

government; spatially defined places such as towns. 

Condition class 1 Little departure from the natural fire regime and natural range of variability; risk of losing 

key ecosystem components is low. 

Condition class 2 Moderately departed from the natural fire regime and natural range of variability; risk of 

losing key ecosystem components is moderate. 

Condition class 3 Highly departed from the natural fire regime and natural range of variability; risk of losing 

key ecosystem components is high. 

Contiguous Used in a geographic sense, refers to situations where areas of land physically touch and 

share substantial common boundaries or have a common border of considerable length. The 

term is not intended to include ‘point-to-point’ touching or ‘cornering’, or instances where 

only small portions of land areas touch. It is not intended to encompass or encourage 

creative mapping exercises that result in irregular shapes, such as narrow corridors and 

‘gerrymandered’ roadless areas. 
Glossary Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

326 Glossary 

Term Definition 

Cultural resource (1) Areas, sites, buildings, art, architecture, memorials, and objects that have scientific, 

historical, or cultural value. (2) Physical remains of human activity of an area of prehistoric 

or historic occupation (for example, sites, structures, buildings, networks, petroglyphs, 

artifacts, objects). Also the conceptual content or context of an area of prehistoric or historic 

occupation (such as a sacred site or setting for events). Cultural resources may be 

archaeological or architectural in nature. They are non-renewable and often fragile. 

Decommissioning Demolition, dismantling, removal, obliteration, or disposal of a deteriorated or otherwise 

unneeded asset or component, including necessary cleanup work. This action eliminates the 

deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset. Portions of an asset or component may 

remain if they do not cause problems or require maintenance. 

Developed recreation Activities that are consistent with the settings and experiences identified with the Roaded 

Natural (RN), Rural ®, and Urban (U) classes of the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS). 

These activities are usually associated with an area that has been improved or developed for 

recreation, such as campgrounds and picnic areas, scenic overlooks and interpretive sites, or 

visitor centers and resorts. 

Dispersed recreation Activities usually associated with backcountry and trails and are consistent with the settings 

and experiences identified with Primitive (P), Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM), and 

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) classes of the ROS. Examples of these activities include 

hiking, snowmobiling, mountain biking, wilderness use, backpacking, horseback riding, 

and OHV use. 

Disturbance A natural or human event that causes a change in the existing condition of an ecological 

system. 

Ecosystem An arrangement of organisms defined by the interactions and processes that occur among 

them. Ecosystems are often defined by their composition, function, and structure. 

Edge effect The influence of two communities on populations in their adjoining boundary zone or 

ecotone, affecting the composition and density of the populations in these bordering areas. 

Endangered species A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and which the appropriate 

Secretary has designated as a threatened species. 

Endemic species Native to, and restricted to, a specific geographical region. 

Even-aged 

(silvicultural) 

management 

The methods used to regenerate and maintain a stand with a single age class. 

Exception A specific circumstance where prohibited activity would be allowed within an inventoried 

roadless area that is otherwise subject to the prohibitions in the alternatives. 

Exemption A geographic area that is not subject to the prohibitions in the alternatives. 

Fire frequency How often fires occur within a given time period in a specified area. 

Fire hazard The overall potential for wildland fire in a vegetated ecosystem, often expressed as a 

condition of fuels on the ground and the probability of ignition. To reduce the fire hazard in 

an area, managers must deal primarily with the fine fuels on the surface of the forest floor 

and with the smaller diameter trees growing in the understory of a forest that provide a 

ladder to the larger, dominant overstory trees. 

Fire intensity The rate at which fuel is consumed and heat is generated. 

Fire return interval The average number of years between successive fires in a designated area. 

Fire regime The historical pattern of fire: how often (frequency); how hot (intensity); and how big 

(scale). It describes natural fire in terms of fire-return interval and amount of replacement of 

the upper life-form (Hardy et al. 2000). Fire regimes are classified into five categories. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS Glossary 

Glossary 327 

Term Definition 

Fire severity Denotes the scale at which vegetation and a site are altered or disrupted by fire, from low to 

high. It is a combination of the degree of fire effects on vegetation and on soil properties. 

Fire suppression The practice of controlling forest and rangeland fires in a safe, economical, and expedient 

fashion while meeting the natural resource objectives outlined in each national forest’s or 

grassland’s land management plan. 

Fluvial fish Fish that migrate between main rivers and tributaries. 

Forest health The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as its age, 

structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or disease, and 

resilience to disturbance. Individual and cultural viewpoints, land management objectives, 

spatial and temporal scales, the relative health of the stands that make up the forest, and the 

appearance of the forest at a point that influences the perception and interpretation of forest 

health. 

Forest road or trail A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the NFS that the Forest 

Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the NFS 

and the use and development of its resources. 36 CFR 212.1 

Fragmentation The break-up of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller patches isolated by areas 

converted to a different land type. The opposite of connectivity. 

Fuel management The practice of evaluating, planning, and executing the treatment of wildland fuel to control 

flammability and reduce the resistance to control. 

Fuel treatment The rearrangement or disposal of fuels to reduce fire hazard or to accomplish other resource 

management objectives. 

Fuels Living and dead parts of trees and shrubs, organic material, and surface material that can 

readily burn in a wildfire. 

Ground-based 

logging 

The dragging or carrying of trees or logs from the stump to the landing using various types 

of self-propelled machines (e.g., tractors, skidders, and forwarders). 

Idaho Roadless Area Those roadless areas in Idaho designated for management under the Idaho Roadless Rule 

(see appendix C). They are based on the most current inventory found either in existing 

plans, proposed plans, or the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Inventoried roadless 

area 

Undeveloped areas (typically exceeding 5,000 acres) that meet the minimum criteria for 

wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act and that were inventoried during the 

Forest Service’s roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II) process, subsequent 

assessments, or forest planning. These areas are identified in a set of inventoried roadless 

area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, which are held at the national 

headquarters office of the Forest Service. 

IMPLAN (Impact 

Analysis for Planning) 

The input-output model used by the Forest Service to estimate economic effects by tracing 

the interrelationships between producers and consumers in an economy as measured by 

jobs and income. 

Landscape An area of interacting and interconnected patterns of habitats (ecosystems) that are repeated 

because of the geology, landform, soil, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the 

area. A landscape is composed of watersheds and smaller ecosystems. 

Landscape character See Scenery Management System. 

Management 

direction 

A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated management 

prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them. 

Mineral resources A concentration of naturally occurring solid, liquid, or gaseous material in or on the earth’s 

crust in such form and amount that economic extraction of a commodity from the 

concentration is currently or potentially feasible. 
Glossary Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

328 Glossary 

Term Definition 

Motorized equipment Machines that use a motor, engine, or other nonliving power sources. This includes, but is 

not limited to, chain saws, aircraft, snowmobiles, generators, motorboats, and motor 

vehicles. It does not include small battery-powered, hand-carried devices such as shavers, 

wristwatches, flashlights, cameras, stoves, or other similar small equipment. 

Municipal watersupply area Watershed containing NFS lands that provides surface waters to facilities that treat and 

distribute water for domestic purposes. These purposes include normal household uses 

such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, watering lawns 

and gardens, and similar uses. 

National Forest 

System road 

A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented rightof-way held by a State, county, or other public road authority (36 CFR 212.1). 

Noxious weeds Plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the 

responsible State official. These species are generally aggressive, difficult to manage, 

poisonous, toxic, parasitic, or a carrier or host of serious insects or disease; and are 

nonnative, new, or uncommon to the United States. 

Off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) 

(1) A four-wheeler, dirt bike, three-wheeler, or track- mounted vehicle or snowmobile 

whose intended use is off-road riding; these are most often not street-legal vehicles. (2) A 

motor vehicle that is designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over 

land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain (36 CFR 212.1). 

Old-growth forest Old single-story forest – single canopy layer consisting of large or old trees. Understory 

trees are often absent, or present in randomly spaced patches. It generally consists of widely 

spaced, shade-intolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and western larch, and highfrequency fire regimes. 

Old multi-story forest – a forest stand with moderate to high canopy closure—a multileveled and multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of 

large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood; 

numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the 

ground. 

Passive management Management approach in which human intervention in an ecosystem is minimal, with 

natural processes such as fire and insect and disease infestations allowed to play out their 

“natural” role. For fire management, this would mean allowing some lightning fires to burn 

or allowing only prescribed fires with burning prescriptions that mimic the natural fire 

regime in size, intensity, and frequency. 

Precommercial 

thinning 

The removal of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce stocking, to 

concentrate growth on the more desirable trees, or to accomplish some other resource 

objective such as fuel reduction. 

Prescribed burning The fire management technique of purposely igniting a fire in a vegetative ecosystem to 

restore forest health and reduce fire hazard. 

Prescription A written statement defining goals and objectives and the actions or treatments needed to 

attain the goals and objectives. Prescriptions are written for discrete portions of NFS lands. 

A prescription can be resource-specific (such as for prescribed fire or silviculture) or, in the 

case of management prescriptions, broad to attain multiple use goals and objectives. 

Primitive A definition used in the ROS to characterize an area that is essentially an unmodified 

natural environment of large size. Interaction among users is very low and evidence of 

other users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of humaninduced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted. 

Public road Any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open 

to public travel. 

Rangeland Land on which the native vegetation is predominately grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs; not forest. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS Glossary 

Glossary 329 

Term Definition 

Recreation 

opportunity spectrum 

(ROS) 

The ROS provides a framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation 

environments, activities, and experience opportunities. ROS is divided into six classes 

arranged along a continuum: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive 

Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban (USDA Forest Service 1986). The basic 

assumption underlying the ROS is that quality outdoor recreation is assured by providing a 

diverse set of opportunities. 

Refugia Areas that have not been exposed to great environmental changes and disturbances 

undergone by the region as a whole. In this EIS, refugia include Idaho Roadless Areas that 

are relatively free from human-caused disruptions and disturbances when compared to 

roaded areas; refugia provide conditions suitable for survival of species that may be 

declining elsewhere. 

Resident fish Fish that spend their entire life in fresh water; examples include bull trout and westslope 

cutthroat trout. 

Restoration Holistic actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, and functioning 

conditions and processes. Generally refers to the process of enabling the system to resume 

acting or continue to act following disturbance as if the disturbances were absent. 

Restoration management activities can either be active (such as control of noxious weeds, 

thinning over-dense stands of trees, or redistributing roads) or passive (more hands-off), 

allowing natural processes to dominate. 

Road A motor vehicle travelway wider than 50 inches, unless designated and managed as a trail 

(36 CFR 212.1). 

Road construction Activities that result in the addition of road miles to the forest transportation system. 

Road maintenance The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the approved road 

management objective. 

Road reconstruction Activities that result in road realignment or road improvement, as defined below: 

Road improvement – Activities that result in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service 

level, expansion of its capacity, or change from its original design function. 

Road realignment – Activities that result in a new location for an existing road or portions 

of an existing road, including treatment of the old roadway. 

Road-based recreation Activities that are normally associated with classified roads and are consistent with the 

settings and experiences identified with Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), Roaded Natural 

(RN), Rural ®, and Urban (U) classes of the ROS. Examples of these activities include car 

camping and picnicking, gathering berries and firewood, driving for pleasure, wildlife 

viewing, and OHV use. 

Roaded Natural A definition used in the ROS to characterize an area that has predominantly naturalappearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of humans. 

Such evidences are usually in harmony with the natural environment. Interaction among 

users may be low to moderate, but evidence of other users is prevalent. Resource 

modification and practices are evident but harmonize with the natural environment. 

Conventional motorized use is provided for construction standards and facilities design. 

Roadless areas For the purposes of this EIS, the term is used in the same context as Idaho Roadless Areas. 

Roadless 

characteristics 

Roadless area characteristics include the following: soil, air, water; sources of public 

drinking water; diversity of plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, 

proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, and for those species dependent on large, 

undisturbed areas of land; Primitives, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive 

Motorized classes of recreation opportunities; reference landscapes; traditional cultural 

properties and sacred sites; other locally identified unique characteristics 

Rural A definition used in the ROS to characterize an area with a substantially modified natural 

environment. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction among 
Glossary Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

330 Glossary 

Term Definition 

users is moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use by large 

numbers of people. Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available. 

Salvage An intermediate cutting made to remove trees that are dead or in imminent danger of being 

killed by injurious agents. 

Scenery Management 

System 

A basis for describing scenic quality in the affected environment and analyzing alternatives 

in the environmental consequences; identifies landscape character and scenic integrity as 

the basis for scenic quality. Landscape character is the overall visual impression of 

landscape attributes that provide a landscape with an identity and sense of place. It consists 

of the combination of physical, biological, and cultural attributes that make each landscape 

identifiable and distinct. Scenic integrity is a measure of the wholeness or completeness of 

the landscape, including the degree of visual deviation from the landscape character valued 

by constituents. Scenic integrity is a continuum of five levels of integrity from very high to 

very low. 

Scenic integrity See Scenery Management System. 

Sedimentation Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, gravity, 

ice, or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually 

will settle to the bottom. 

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized (SPM) 

A definition used in the ROS to characterize an area that has a predominantly natural or 

natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but 

there is often evidence of other users. The areas are managed in such a manner that 

minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is 

permitted. 

Semi-Primitive NonMotorized (SPNM) A definition used in the ROS to characterize an area that has a predominantly natural or 

natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction among users is low, 

but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum 

on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but they are subtle. Motorized use is not 

permitted. 

Sensitive species Those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which population 

viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in 

population numbers or density or by significant current or predicted downward trends in 

habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. 

Shelterwood harvest The removal of most trees, leaving those needed for sufficient shade to produce a new age 

class in a moderated microenvironment. Removal of the shelter trees may or may not occur 

after regeneration becomes established. 

Significant (cultural, 

historical) 

36 CFR Part 60 sets out the legal criteria for evaluating the quality of significance in 

“districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance.” Historic 

properties are considered significant if they qualify for inclusions in the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Species richness A measure of biological diversity referring to the number of species in an area. 

Stand A distinguishable, contiguous group of similar plants or trees that are uniform in age-class 

distribution, composition, and structure, and are growing on a site of uniform quality. 

Stewardship Administration of land and associated resources in a manner that enables them to be passed 

on to future generations in a healthy condition. 

Structure The sizes, shapes, and/or ages of the plants and animals in an area. 

Subwatershed A drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field hydrologic unit code 

(HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th field HUC) are contained within watersheds (5thfield HUC), which in turn is contained within a sub-basin (4th-field HUC). 

Succession A predictable process of changes in structure and composition of plant and animal 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS Glossary 

Glossary 331 

Term Definition 

communities over time. Conditions of the prior plant communities or successional stage 

create conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. The different 

stages of succession are often referred to as seral stages. 

Temporary road or 

trail 

A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, lease, 

other written authorization that is not a forest road or trail and that is not included in a 

forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1). 

Thinning (1) The cutting down and/or removing of trees from a forest to lessen the chance of a 

ground fire becoming a crown fire; a method of preparing an area so that a prescribed fire 

can be more easily controlled. Thinning influences the available amount of fuel and fuel 

arrangement, and it can indirectly affect fuel moisture content and surface wind speeds. (2) 

A culture treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, 

enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality. 

Threatened species Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range and which the appropriate Secretary has 

designated as a threatened species. 

Timber cutting Timber cutting is used in this EIS to mean any cutting of any trees for management 

purposes. Timber cutting is a broad term and includes timber harvest (removal of 

commercial products) as well as other actions that result in the cutting of a tree with no 

removal of a commercial product—such as slashing, chipping, mulching, precommercial 

thinning, or personal use firewood. 

Timber harvest The process by which trees with commercial value are cut and removed from the forest to 

meet management objectives. 

Timber sale A contractual process of selling timber to a purchaser and implementing a series of 

harvesting requirements for what type, how, and when the trees are removed. 

Trail A route 50 inches or narrower in width or a route more than 50 inches wide that is 

identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR 212.1). 

Unauthorized road or 

trail 

A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not 

included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1). 

Uncharacteristic 

wildland fire effect 

An increase in wildfire size, severity, and resistance to control; and the associated impact on 

people, property, and fire fighter safety, compared to that which occurred in the native 

system. 

Uneven-aged 

(silvicultural) 

management 

Methods used to regenerate and maintain a multi-aged structure by removing some trees in 

all size classes, either singly, in small groups, or in strips. 

Unwanted wildland 

fire 

Any wildland fire in an undesirable location or season, or burning at an undesirable 

intensity, spread rate, or direction. In general, wildfire is unwanted in WUI. 

Upper life form Refers to the upper portion of vegetation. For example, in forested ecosystems, upper life 

form refers to the overstory trees; in shrubland ecosystems, it refers to the taller shrub 

component. 

Urban A definition used in the ROS to characterize a substantially urbanized environment, even 

though the background may have natural-appearing elements. Affiliation with individuals 

and groups is prevalent, as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. Large numbers of 

users can be expected, both on-site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified 

motor vehicle use and parking are available. Regimentation and controls are obvious and 

numerous. 

Urban area As defined by the Census Bureau for the 1990 census, an area comprising all territory, 

population, and housing units in urbanized areas, or places of 2,500 or more persons 

outside of urbanized areas. An urbanized area comprises one or more places (‘central 

place’) and the adjacent densely settled surrounding territory (‘urban fringe’) that together 
Glossary Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS 

332 Glossary 

Term Definition 

have a minimum of 50,000 persons. 

Visual quality 

objectives 

Resource management objectives established by the district manager or contained in a 

higher-level plan; these objectives reflect the desired level of visual quality based on the 

physical characteristics and social concern for the area. 

Volume sold The amount of timber actually purchased, which is usually less than offered volume 

because some sales are judged as economically marginal by prospective purchasers, and 

they receive no bids. 

Volume harvested The actual volume removed from the forest in a given year, which may be higher or lower 

than volume sold depending on market conditions. Most harvest volume was actually sold 

1 to 3 years earlier. 

Wilderness A designated area defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964 in the following way: “A 

wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and 

which (a) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (b) has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (c) has at least five thousand acres 

of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition; and (d) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” 

Wildfire An unwanted wildland fire. 

Wildland Land other than that dedicated for other uses, such as agriculture, urban, mining, or parks. 

Wildland fire A lightning- or human-caused fire that is either being suppressed or, if lightning-caused, 

allowed to burn (see wildland fire used for resource benefit). Often used synonymously 

with ‘wildfire’ or ‘forest fire’. 

Wildland fire use for 

resource benefit 

The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific pre-stated 

resource management objectives in pre-defined geographic areas. 

Wildland–urban 

interface (WUI) 

The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle 

with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. 

Yarder A machine for cable logging consisting of a system of power-operated winches and a tower 

used to haul logs from a stump to a landing. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 333 

REFERENCES

Andrews, K.M.; J.W. Gibbons. 2005. How do 

highways influence snake movement? 

Behavioral responses to roads and vehicles. 

Copeia. 4: 772–782. 

http://www.uga.edu/srel/Reprint/2906.ht

m. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Anthony, R.G.; F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics 

of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 53: 148–159. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/0022541x/ap07

0206/07a00290/0. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Arrow, K.; A.Fisher. 1974. Environmental 

preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. 

Quarterly Journal of Economics. 312–319. 

Ash, A.N. 1997. Disappearance and return of 

plethodontid salamanders to clearcut plots in 

the southern Blue Ridge Mountains. 

Conservation Biology. 11: 983–989. 

http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1523-

1739.1997.96172.x?cookieSet=1. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Ashton, P.G.; J.B. Pickens. 1995. Employment 

diversity and economic performance in 

small, resource-dependent communities near 

western national forests. Society and Natural 

Resources. 8: 231–241. 

Baker, M.D.; M.J. Lacki. 1997. Short-term 

changes in bird communities in response to 

silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 96: 27–36. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Batt, P.E. 1996. State of Idaho bull trout 

conservation plan. Boise, ID: Office of the 

Governor. 

http://species.idaho.gov/pdf/bulltroutcons

ervationplan-96.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Beale, C. L.; K. M. Johnson. 1998. The 

identification of recreational counties in 

nonmetropolitan areas of the U.S.A. 

Population Research and Policy Review. 17: 

37–53. 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g36

223516p7n4776/fulltext.pdf. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North 

America. 1st edition. New York: Free Press, 

Chanticleer Press. 384 p. 

Bengston, D.N.; Z. Xu. 1995. Changing national 

forest values: a content analysis. Research 

Paper NC-323. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

North Central Research Station. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/1080

6 (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

Beschta, R.L.; R.E. Bilby; G.W. Brown; L.B. 

Holtby; T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream 

temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries 

and forestry interactions. In: Salo, E.O.; T.W. 

Cundy, eds. Streamside management: 

forestry and fishery interactions. 

Contribution No. 57. Seattle, WA: University 

of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 

191–232. 

Besser, J.M.; C.F. Rabeni. 1987. Bioavailability 

and toxicity of metals leached from leadmine tailings to aquatic invertebrates. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 6: 

879–890. 

Birdsey, R.; K. Pregitzer; A. Lucier. 2006. Forest 

carbon management in the United States: 

1600–2100. Journal of Environmental Quality. 

35: 1461–1469. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square

/publications/other_publishers/ne_2006_bir

dsey002p.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Boardman, A.E.; D.H. Greenberg; A. Vining; 

D.L. Weimer. 1996. Cost-benefit analysis: 

concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, 

NJ: Prentice Hall. p. 12 

Brown, G.; P. Reed. 2000. Validation of a forest 

values typology for use in national forest 

planning. Forest Science. 46(2): 240–247. 

Burroughs, E.R.; J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of 

soil erosion on forest roads. General 

Technical Report GTR INT-264. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo

/documents/GTRs/INT_264/INT264_ReducSoilEro_1989.pdf. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

334 References 

Cane, J. H. 2001. Habitat fragmentation and 

native bees: a premature verdict? 

Conservation Ecology 5(1): 3. 

http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art3/. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Central Idaho Economic Development and 

Recreation Act [CIEDRA]. 2007. 110th

Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 222. Introduced 

by Idaho’s 2nd District Congressman, Mike 

Simpson, January 4, 2007. 

http://www.house.gov/simpson/pdf/110th

_HR222.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Chamberlin, T.W.; R.D. Harr; F.H. Everest. 

1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and 

watershed processes. In: Meehan, W.R., ed., 

Influences of forest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats. Special Publication 19. Bethesda, 

MD: American Fisheries Society: 181–205. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00458511/ap05

0425/05a00470/0. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Chamberlin, Sarah. 2007 [May 29]. Personal 

communication Sarah Chamberlin, GIS and 

State Forestry. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Boise, Idaho. 

Chen, J.; J.F. Franklin; T.A. Spies. 1995.

Growing-season microclimatic gradients 

from clearcut edges into old-growth 

Douglas-fir forest. Ecological Applications. 

5(1): 74–86. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/10510761/di960

387/96p00142/0. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Coghlan, G.; R. Sowa. 1998. National forest 

road system and use. Unpublished draft 

report on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, engineering staff. 

Washington Office, Washington, DC. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/roads

ummary.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Cole, E.K.; M.D. Pope; R.G. Anthony. 2004. 

Influence of road management on diurnal 

habitat use of Roosevelt elk. Northwest 

Science. 78(4): 313–321. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/0022541x/ap07

0241/07a00160/0. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Cordell, H. K. 1999. Outdoor recreation in 

American life: a national assessment of 

demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: 

Sagamore Publishing. Pages 39–182 and 323–

350. 

Cundick Jeff 2007. Personal communication 

with Jeff Cundick, Pocatello Field Office; 

Minerals Branch Chief. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

Curley, K; S. Mace;S. Stouder. 2004. Where the 

wild lands are: Idaho. Arlington, VA: Trout 

Unlimited. 28 p. 

http://www.tu.org/atf/cf/%7b0D18ECB7-

7347-445B-A38E65B282BBBD8A%7d/Roadless_Idaho.pdf. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Cypher, E. 2005. Corridor effects on the 

endangered plant kern mallow and its 

habitat. Unpublished report, prepared for the 

California Energy Commission, Public 

Interest Energy Research Program (PIER). 

CEC-500-2005-063. 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publication

s/CEC-500-2005-063/CEC-500-2005-063.PDF. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007).

Davies-Colley, R.J. 1992. Yellow substance in 

coastal marine waters round the South Island 

New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of 

Marine and Freshwater Research. 26: 311–

322. 

http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjmfr/1992

/30.php. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

DeBano, L.F.; D.G. Neary; P.F. Folliott. 1998. 

Fire’s effect on ecosystems. New York: John 

Wiley and Sons. 333 p. 

Deeming, J.E. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire on 

wildfire occurrence and severity. In: 

Walstand, J.D. [et al.], eds. Natural and 

prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 

95–104. 

deMaynadier, P.G.; M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998.

Effects of silvicultural edges on the 

distribution and abundance of amphibians in 

Maine. Conservation Biology. 12: 340–352. 

http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1523-

1739.1998.96412.x. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 335 

deMaynadier, P.G.; M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1999.

Forest canopy closure and juvenile 

emigration by pool-breeding amphibians in 

Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management. 63: 

441–450. 

Dobbs, M.G.; D.S. Cherry; J. Cairns Jr. 1996. 

Toxicity and bioaccumulation of selenium to 

a three-trophic level food chain. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 

15: 340–347. 

Driver, B. L.; P. J. Brown; G. L. Peterson. 1991. 

Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: 

Venture Publishing. 

Everest F. H.; R. L. Beschta; J. C. Scrivener; K. 

V. Koski; J. R. Sedell; C. J. Cederholm. 1987. 

Fine sediment and salmonid production: a 

paradox. In E. O. Salo; T. W. Cundy, eds. 

Proceedings of the symposium streamside 

management: forestry and fishery 

interactions. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 

98–142. 

Fenn, M.E. 2006. The effects of nitrogen 

distribution, ambient ozone, and climate 

change on forests in the Western U.S. Proc. 

September 20-24, 2004, Denver, CO. RMRS-P42CD. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 8 

p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p042

/rmrs_p042_002_008.pdf. (Accessed October 

26, 2007). 

Finney, M.A. 2000. Spatial patterns of fuel 

treatments and some effects of fire growth 

and behavior. In: Neuenschwander, L. F.; K. 

C Ryan, tech. eds. Proceedings from the joint 

fire science conference and workshop: 

crossing the millennium—integrating spatial 

technologies and ecological principles for a 

new age in fire management: 127–137. 

http://jfsp.nifc.gov/conferenceproc/T02Finney.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Flather, C.H.; S.J. Brady; M.S. Knowles. 1999.

Wildlife resource trends in the United States: 

a technical document supporting the 2000 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-33. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr33.

pdf. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Fleischmann, D.J.; 2006. Geothermal 

development needs in Idaho. ID: Geothermal 

Energy Association. 51 p. http://www.geoenergy.org/publications/reports/Idaho%20

Geothermal%20Report.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

Fredrick, G.P. 1991. Effects of forest roads on 

grizzly bears, elk, and gray wolves: a 

literature review. Publication Number R1-91-

73. Libby, MT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai 

National Forest. 53 p. 

Furniss, M. J.; T. D. Roeloffs; C. S. Yee. 1991.

Road construction and maintenance. In: 

Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of forest and 

rangeland management on salmonid fishes 

and their habitats. Special Publication 19. 

Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 

297–323. 

Gaines, W.L.; A.L. Lyons; J.F. Lehmkuhl; K.J. 

Raedeke. 2005. Landscape evaluation of 

female black bear habitat effectiveness and 

capability in the North Cascades, 

Washington. Biological Conservation. 125(4): 

411–425. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/

uncaptured/pnw_2005_gaines001.pdf. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Garcia-Hernandez, J.; E.P. Glenn; J. Artiola; 

D.J. Baumgartner. 2000. Bioaccumulation of 

selenium (Se) in the Cienaga de Santa Clara 

wetland, Sonora, Mexico. Ecotoxicology and 

Environmental Safety. 46: 298–304. 

Garrod, G. D.; K. G. Willis. 1992. The 

environmental economic impact of 

woodland: a two-stage hedonic price model 

of the amenity value of forest in Britain. 

Applied Economics. 24: 715–728. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

336 References 

Gebert, K.M. and S.L. Odell. 2007. A 

descriptive analysis of change in eligibility 

status for the USDA Forest Service economic 

recovery program. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP62WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 32 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp062

.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Gebert, K.M.; D.E. Calkin; E.G. Schuster. 2004.

The Secure Rural Schools Act of 2000: does it 

make rural schools secure? Journal of 

Education Finance. 30(2): 176–186. 

Gebert, K.M.; D.E. Calkin; E.G. Schuster. 2005. 

The Secure Rural Schools Act, Federal land 

payments, and property tax equivalency. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 20(1): 

50–57. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/s

af/wjaf/2005/00000020/00000001/art00006. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Geothermal Task Force. 2006. Geothermal task 

force report. Western Governor’s 

Association. 67 p. 

http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/c

deac/Geothermal-full.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

Gibbs, J.P. 1998. Amphibian movements in 

response to forest edges, roads, and 

streambeds in southern New England. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. (62): 584–

589. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/0022541x/ap07

0243/07a00170/0. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Graham, R.T.; T.B. Jain; S. Mathews 2006. Fuel 

management in forests of the inland western 

United States. In: Elliot, W.J.; Audin, L.J., eds. 

Cumulative watershed effects of fuels 

management in the Western United States. 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe

/Graham_Jain_Chap_Figs_Final.pdf. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Graham, R.T.; A.E. Harvey; T.B. Jain; J.R. Tonn. 

1999. The effects of thinning and similar 

stand treatments on fire behavior in western 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 27 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_463.p

df. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Grumbine, E. 1999. Beyond conservation and 

preservation in American environmental 

values. In: Driver, B.L. [et al.], eds. Nature 

and the human spirit: toward an expanded 

land management ethic. State College, PA: 

Venture Publishing, Inc.: 237–245. 

Hamilton, S.J. 2002. Rationale for a tissue-based 

selenium criteron for aquatic life. Aquatic 

Toxicology. 57: 85–100. 

Hardy, C.C.; D.L. Bunnell; J.P. Menakis; K.M. 

Schmidt; D.G. Long. 2000. Coarse-scale 

spatial data for wildland fire and fuel 

management. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Prescribed Fire 

and Fire Effects Research Unit. 

www.fs.fed.us/fire/fuelman. (Accessed 

October 26, 2007). 

Hartnett, D.C.; Bazzaz, F.A. 1985. The genet and 

ramet population dynamics of Solidago 

canadensis in an abandoned old field. Journal 

of Ecology. 73: 755–761. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00220477/di985

458/98p0004e/0. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Hayes, J.P.; J.M. Weikel; M.M.P. Huso. 2003.

Response of birds to thinning young 

Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications. 

13(5): 1222–1232. 

http://fresc.usgs.gov/products/fs/fs-033-

03.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Hicks, B.J.; J.D. Hall; P.A. Bisson; J.R. Sedell. 

1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat 

changes. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of 

forest and rangeland management on 

salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special 

Publication 19. Bethesda, MD: American 

Fisheries Society: 483–518. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 337 

Honnay, O.; B. Bossuyt. 2005. Prolonged clonal 

growth: escape route or route to extinction? 

Oikos. 108: 427–432. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0030-

1299.2005.13569.x. (Accessed October 26, 

2007).

Hornbeck, J.W.; W.B. Leak. 1992. Ecology and 

management of northern hardwood forests 

in New England. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-159. 

Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest 

Experiment Station. 44 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square

/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/scann

ed/gtr159.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Hutto, R.L.; S.M. Gallo. 2006. The effects of 

postfire salvage logging on cavity-nesting 

birds. Condor. 108(4): 817–831. 

http://dbs.umt.edu/research_labs/huttolab

/PDF/publications/2006-Hutto&Gallocondor%20proofs.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Idaho Department of Agriculture. 1999. Idaho’s 

strategic plan for managing noxious weeds. 

Boise, ID. 11 pp. 

http://agri.idaho.gov/Categories/PlantsIns

ects/NoxiousWeeds/Documents/general/st

ratplan.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007).

Idaho Department of Agriculture. 2005. Idaho 

invasive plan. Unpublished report prepared 

for the Idaho Invasive Species Council by the 

Northwest Natural Resource Group-LLC. 103 

pp. 

http://agri.idaho.gov/Categories/Environm

ent/InvasiveSpeciesCouncil/StrategicActPla

n.php (Accessed November 2, 2007). 

Idaho Department of Agriculture. 2007.

Noxious weed inventory GIS layer. 

Unpublished database. p. 3 

Idaho Department of Commerce. 2005. Profile 

of rural Idaho. Boise, ID: Division of 

Economic Development. 2005IDC 99-331. p. 3 

http://irp.idaho.gov/ProfileofRuralIdaho/t

abid/204/Default.aspx (Accessed November 

2, 2007). 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 

2007. 2004 Interagency forest practices water 

quality audit. Boise, ID. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 

2005. Idaho comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy. Boise, ID: Idaho 

Conservation Data Center. 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/C

DC/cwcs.cfm. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 

2007. Idaho’s special status plants. Boise, ID: 

Idaho Conservation Data Center. 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/C

DC/plants/. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Idaho Department of Labor (IDL). 2005. Census 

bureau projects 52% increase in population. 

Department of Labor News. 

http://cl.idaho.gov/news/Home/tabid/294

/ctl/PressRelease/mid/1047/ItemID/1475/

Default.aspx. (Accessed October 26, 2007).

Idaho Department of Lands (IDL). 2000. Forest 

practices cumulative watershed effects. In: 

Idaho Forest Practices Act. Idaho 

Department of Lands, Boise, ID: 82pp. 

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/bureau/ForestA

ssist/CWE-Combined.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

Idaho Department of Lands (IDL). 2007. 

County wildfire protection plans. 

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/nat_fire_plan/co

unty_wui_plans/index.htm. (Accessed 

October 26, 2007). 

Idaho Partners in Flight. 2000. Bird 

conservation plan. Version 1.0. 

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl_id_

10.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Idaho State Fire Plan Working Group. 2007.

Greetings from Steve Kimball, Idaho’s 

national fire plan coordinator. ISFPWG 

Newsletter. 2(2): 1–4. 

http://www.idahofireplan.org/images/Aug

ust%202007.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Impact Assessment, Inc. 1995. Social 

assessment for the Kootenai National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National 

Forest, Libby, Montana. 330pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/kootenai/projects

/planning/documents/soc_asses/index.sht

ml (Accessed November 2, 2007). 

Jasinski, S.M. 1999. Phosphate rock. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. 13 p. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

338 References 

Jasinski, S.M.; W.H. Lee; J.D. Causey. 2004. The 

history of production of the western 

phosphate field. In Hein, J.R., ed. Life cycle of 

the phosphoria formation: from deposition to 

the post-mining environment. Handbook of 

exploration and environmental 

geochemistry, Vol. 8, (M. Hale, series editor). 

Amsterdam: Elsevier: 45–71. 

Johnson, J.D.; R. Rasker. 1995. The role of 

economic and quality of life values in rural 

business locations. Journal of Rural Studies. 

11(4): 405–416. 

Johnson, K.P.; J.R. Kort. 2004. 2004 redefinition 

of BEA economic areas. Survey of Current 

Business. 68–75. 

Johnson, K.M.; C.L. Beale. 1994. The recent 

revival of widespread population growth in 

nonmetropolitan areas of the United States. 

Rural Sociology. 59(4): 655–667. 

Joly, K.; C. Nellemann; I. Vistnes. 2006. A 

reevaluation of caribou distribution near an 

oilfield road on Alaska's north slope. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 34(3): 866–869. 

http://www.bioone.org/archive/0091-

7648/34/3/pdf/i0091-7648-34-3-866.pdf. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Kashian, D.M.; W.H. Romme; D.B. Tinker; 

M.G. Turner; M.G. Ryan. 2006. Carbon 

storage on landscapes with stand-replacing 

fires. BioScience. 56( 7): 598–606.

http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-

3568/56/7/pdf/i0006-3568-56-7-598.pdf. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007).

Kempton, W.; J.S. Boster; J.A. Hartley. 1996.

Environmental values in American culture. 

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Kim, Y.-S.; Johnson, R.L. 2002. The impact of 

forests and forest management on 

neighboring property values. Society and 

Natural Resources. 15: (10) 887–901. 

Kirschbaum, M.A. 2003. Seventh approximation 

– data form for conventional assessment 

units, Wyoming Thrust Belt Province, U.S. 

Geological Survey (version 6, 9 April 2003). 

In: National Oil and Gas Assessment: 4 

http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/noga00

/prov36/tabular/c360101.pdf. (Accessed 

October 26, 2007). 

Kolb, A.; M. Diekmann, 2005. Effects of lifehistory traits on responses of plant species to 

forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology. 

19: 929–93. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2005.00065.x. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Krutilla, J. V. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. 

American Economic Review. 56: 777–786. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00028282/di950

397/95p0252k/0. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Krutilla, J.V.; A. Fischer. 1975. The economics of 

natural environments. Baltimore, MD: Johns 

Hopkins University Press. 

Landres, P., S. Boutcher; L. Merigliano; C. Barns; 

D. Davis; T. Hall; S. Henry; B. Hunter; P. 

Janiga; M. Laker; A. McPherson; D.S. Powell; 

M. Rowan; S. Sater. 2005. Monitoring 

selected conditions related to wilderness 

character: a national framework. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 38 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/9459

(Accessed November 2, 2007 

Lee, D.C.; J.R. Sedell; B.R. Rieman; R.F. 

Thurow; J.E. Williams; [and others]. 1997.

In: Quigley, T.M.; S.J. Arbelbide, tech eds. An 

assessment of ecosystem components in the 

interior Columbia basin and portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins: vol. 3, ch. 4. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1058–

1496. 

Lewis, J.W., 2000. Mapping risk from forest 

insects and disease. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/conf/a

bs/lewis.htm. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the 

ecological effects of human trampling on 

natural ecosystems. Biological Conservation. 

7: 17–36. 

Liddle, M.J. 1991. Recreation ecology: effects of 

trampling on plants and corals. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution. 6(1): 13–17. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 339 

Lockheed Martin Energy Research 

Corporation. 1999. Landscan global 

population 1998 database. Unpublished 

report prepared for contract DE-AC05-

96OR22464, with the U. S. Department of 

Energy. On file at: Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, P. O. Box 2008, MS 

6237. 12 p. 

Loeb, S.C.; T.A. Waldrop; D.W. Leput. 2002. 

Effects of forest thinning and prescribed 

burning on bat activity in the Piedmont of 

South Carolina. Bat Research News. 43(4): 

164. 

Loomis, John B. 2000. Vertically summing 

public good demand curves: an empirical 

comparison of economic versus political 

jurisdictions. Land Economics. 76 (2): 312–

321. 

Luce, C.H.; B.C. Wemple. 2001. Introduction to 

special issue on hydrologic and geomorphic 

effects of forest roads. Earth Surf. Process. 

Landforms. 26: 111–113. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs

_2001_luce_c001.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Lull, H.W.; K.G. Reinhart. 1972. Forests and 

floods in the eastern United States. Res. Pap. 

NE-226. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station. 94 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/2367

2. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Lybecker, D.L.; D. Shields; M. Haefele. 2005.

Survey responses from the Intermountain 

West: are we achieving the public’s 

objectives for forests and rangelands? Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-160. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 35 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr16

0.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

MacCleery, D.W.; D.C. Le Master. 1999. The 

historical foundation and evolving context 

for natural resource management on Federal 

lands. In: Szaro, R.C.; N.C. 

Maier, K.J.; C.R. Nelson; F.C. Bailey; S.J. 

Klaine; A.W. Knight. 1998. Accumulation of 

selenium in the aquatic biota of a watershed 

treated with seleniferous fertilizer. Bulletin of 

Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology. 60: 409–416. 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/gak

k9d2gp5r8cmqm/fulltext.pdf. (Accessed 

October 26, 2007). 

Marcot, B.G.; M.A. Castellano; J.A. Christy; 

L.K. Croft; J.F. Lehmkuhl; R.H. Naney; K. 

Nelson; C.G. Niwa; R.E. Rosentreter; R.E. 

Sandquist; B.C. Wales; E. Zieroth. 1997. In: 

Quigley, T. M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An 

assessment of ecosystem components in the 

interior Columbia basin and portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins: volume 3, chapter 

5, terrestrial ecology assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 447–667. 

Marlin, J.C.; W.E. LaBerge. 2001. The native bee 

fauna of Carlinville, Ill., revisited after 75 

years: a case for persistence. Conservation 

Ecology. 5(1): 9.

http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art9/. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007).

Marsh, D.M.; G.S. Milam; N.P. Gorham; N.G. 

Beckman. 2005. Forest Roads as partial 

barriers to terrestrial salamander movement. 

Conservation Biology. 19(6): 2004–2008. 

http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2005.00238.x. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Marshal, J.P.; V.C. Bleich; P.R. Krausman; M.L. 

Reed; N.G. Andrew; V.C. Bueich. 2006. 

Factors affecting habitat use and distribution 

of desert mule deer in an arid environment. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34(3): 609–619. 

http://www.bioone.org/archive/0091-

7648/34/3/pdf/i0091-7648-34-3-609.pdf. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and 

rangeland management on salmonid fishes and 

their habitats. Special Publication 19. Bethesda, 

MD: American Fisheries Society. 751 p. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00458511/ap0504

25/05a00470/0. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

340 References 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group. 2006. Welcome to 

the web site of Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 

Inc. http://www.implan.com. (Accessed 

October 26, 2007). 

Miles, P.D. 2007. Forest inventory mapmaker 

web-application version 2.1. St. Paul, MN: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Research Station.

http://www.ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/ind

ex.htm. (Accessed June 07, 2007). 

Mitchell, M.S.; R.A. Powell. 2003. Response of 

black bears to forest management in the 

southern Appalachian Mountains. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 67(4): 692–705. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/0022541x/ap07

0265/07a00060/0. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Moore, T. 2007. National Forest System road 

trends, trends analysis. Unpublished draft 

report submitted to Office of Management 

and Budget. On file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, engineering staff, 

Washington Office, Washington, DC. 

Mote, P.W.; A.F. Hamlet; M.P. Clark; D.P. 

Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain 

snowpack in western North America. Bull. 

Amer. Meteor. Soc. 86: 39–49. 

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-

0477/86/1/pdf/i1520-0477-86-1-39.pdf. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented 

forests: implications for conservation. Trends 

in Ecology and Evolution. 10: 58–62. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/el

s/01695347/1995/00000010/00000002/art88

977. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Mushinsky, H.R.; D.J. Gibson. 1991. The 

influence of fire periodicity on habitat 

structure. In: Bell, S.S.; E.D. McCoy; H.R. 

Mushinsky, eds. Habitat structure: the 

physical arrangement of objects in space. NY: 

Chapman and Hall: 237–259. 

National Ski Areas Association (NSAA). 2004. 

Comments on the State Petition rulemaking. 

Unpublished report. 3 p. 

Nelson, R.L.; M.L. McHenry; W.S. Platts. 1991. 

Mining. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. Influence of 

forest and rangeland management on 

salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special 

Publication 19. Bethesda, MD: American 

Fisheries Society: 425-458. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00458511/ap05

0425/05a00470/0. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Norse, E.A.;K.L. Rosenbaum; D.S. Wilcove; 

B.A. Wilcox; W.H. Romme; [et al.]. 1986. 

Conserving biological diversity in our 

national forests. Washington, DC: The 

Wilderness Society: 19–36,116. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/08888892/di995

132/99p0017b/0. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Noss R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest 

management in a time of rapid climate 

change. Conservation Biology. 15: 578–590. 

http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1523-

1739.2001.015003578.x. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

Noss, R.F.; A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving 

nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring 

biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

416 p. 

Parker, J.D.; J.D. Wulfhorst; J. Kamm. 2002.

Social assessment for the Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests. Moscow, ID: University of 

Idaho. 159 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ipnf/eco/manage/fo

restplan/ipnf_social_assessment.pdf. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

Parmesan C.; G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent 

fingerprint of climate change impacts across 

natural systems. Nature. 421: 37–42. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4

21/n6918/full/nature01286.html. (Accessed 

October 26, 2007). 

Parrett, C. [et al.]. 2004. Wildfire-related floods 

and debris flows in Montana in 2000 and 2001. 

USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03-4319. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 

22p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri03-

4319/pdf/wrir03_4319.pdf. (Accessed October 

26, 2007). 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 341 

Partners in Flight. 2007. Physiographic areas 

plans. 

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/pifplans.htm

. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Patriquin, K.J.; R.M.R. Barclay. 2003. Foraging 

by bats in cleared, thinned and unharvested 

boreal forest. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

40(4): 646–657. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1365-

2664.2003.00831.x. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Peterson, J.T.; P.B. Bayley. 1993. Colonization 

rates of fishes in experimentally defaunated 

warm water streams. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society. 122: 199–207. 

Petranka, J.W.; M.E. Eldridge; K.E. Haley. 1993.

Effects of timber harvesting on southern 

Appalachian salamanders. Conservation 

Biology. 7: 363–370. 

Pharo, E.J.; Zartman, C.E. 2007. Bryophytes in a 

changing landscape: the hierarchical effects 

of habitat fragmentation on ecological and 

evolutionary processes. Biological 

Conservation. 135(3): 315–325. 

http://www.aseanbiodiversity.info/Abstrac

t/51006525.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Pierson, k; V.J. Tepedino; S. Sipes; K. Kuta.

2000. Pollination ecology of the rare orchid, 

Spiranthes diluvialis: implications for 

conservation. In: Maschinski, J.; L. Holter, 

eds. Southwestern rare and endangered 

plants: proceedings of the third conference, 

September 25–28, 2000, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Proceedings RMRS-P-23. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 

153–164. 

Powe, N.A.; G.D. Garrod; C.F. Brunsdon; K. G. 

Willis. 1997. Using a geographic information 

system to estimate an hedonic price model of 

the benefits of woodland access. Forestry. 70: 

139–149.

http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/repri

nt/70/2/139. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Power TM. 1998. Lost landscapes and failed 

economies: the search for a value of place. 

Washington (DC): Island Press. pp. 1-56 

Preisler, H.K.; A.A. Ager; M.J. Wisdom. 2006. 

Statistical methods for analyzing responses 

of wildlife to human disturbance. Journal of 

Applied Ecology. 43(1): 164–172. 

Presser, T.S.;M.A. Sylvester; W.H. Lew. 1994. 

Bioaccumulation of selenium from natural 

geologic sources in western states and its 

potential consequences. Environmental 

Management. 18: 423–436. 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v55

5h85k3r768050/fulltext.pdf. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Quigley, T.M.; S. Arbelbide, 1997. An 

assessment of ecosystem components in the 

interior Columbia basin and portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

volume II: 394, 629, 888, 890, 892. [1,055 p]. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr405/p

nw_gtr405az.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

RACNAC. See Roadless Area Conservation 

National Advisory Committee. 

Rasker, R. 1994. A new look at old vistas: the 

economic role of environmental quality in 

western public lands. University of Colorado 

Law Review. 65(2): 369–399. 

Rasker, R.; B. Alexander. 2003. Working around 

the White Clouds: county and community 

profiles surrounding Idaho’s Boulder, White 

Cloud, and Pioneer Mountains, Tucson, AZ: 

Sonoran Institute. 

Ream, R.R.; U.I. Mattson. 1982. Wolf status in 

the northern Rockies. In: Harrington, F.H.; 

P.C. Paquet, eds. Wolves of the world. Park 

Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publishing: 362–381. 

Reese, J. B. 2000. Record of decision, Targhee 

National Forest oil and gas leasing final EIS. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Targhee National Forest. 17 p. 

Reeves, G.H.; L.E. Benda; K.M. Burnett; P.A. 

Bisson; J.R. Sedell. 1995 A disturbancebased ecosystem approach to maintaining 

and restoring freshwater habitats of 

evolutionary significant units of anadromous 

salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17: 

334–349. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

342 References 

Rehfeldt, G.E.; N. L. Crookston; M.V. Warwell; 

J.S. Evans. 2006. Empirical analysis of plantclimate relationships for the western United 

States. International Journal of Plant 

Sciences. 167 (6): 1123–1150. 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/IJPS/jo

urnal/issues/v167n6/30167/30167.web.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Reighn, C. 2007 [June 15]. Personal 

communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Boise ID. 

Reynolds, R.T.; R.T. Graham; M.H. Reiser. 

1991. Management recommendations for the 

northern goshawk in the southwestern 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain forest and 

Range Experiment station. 184 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr

217.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Risch, J. 2006. Petition of Governor James E. 

Risch. State Specific Rulemaking for Roadless 

Areas in Idaho. Office of the Governor, Boise, 

Idaho. 69 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/idaho.shtml

(Accessed November 2, 2007). 

Roadless Area Conservation National 

Advisory Committee [RACNAC]. 2006.

RACNAC meeting summary, Nov. 29–30, 

2006. Unpublished.19 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/roadless/nov_fi

nal_mtg_summary.pdf (Accessed November 

2, 2007) 

Roadless Area Conservation National 

Advisory Committee [RACNAC]. 2006a.

Advice of the RACNAC on State of Idaho’s 

proposal to use the Administrative 

Procedures Act to amend the Forest Service 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001. 

Unpublished. 4 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/roadless/racnac

_idaho_letter.pdf (Accessed November 2, 

2007) 

Robison, S. 2007. Reasonable foreseeable 

development scenario for oil and gas 

development for Caribou National Forest 

and Curlew National Grassland. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/cariboutarghee/projects/oil_gas/rfd.pdf. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007).

Robinson, S.K.;F. R. Thompson III; T.M. 

Donavan; D.R. Whitehead; J. Faaborg. 1995. 

Regional forest fragmentation and the 

nesting success of migratory birds. Science. 

267: 1987–1990. 

http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/1995/nc_19

95_Robinson_001.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Root, T.L.; J.T. Price; K.R. Hall; S.H. Schneider; 

C. Rosenzweig; J.A. Pounds. 2003. 

Fingerprints of global warming on wild 

animals and plants. Nature. 421: 57–60. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4

21/n6918/full/nature01333.html. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Rosenberg, K.V.; J.D. Lowe; A.A. Dhondt. 1999. 

Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding 

tanagers: a continental perspective. 

Conservation Biology. 13: 568–583. 

http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1523-

1739.1999.98020.x. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

RRC Associates. 2006 Projected demand and 

visitation for U.S. ski areas. 

http://www.skibitterrootresort.com/pdf/R

ybergrebuttalV4.pdf. 11 p. (Accessed October 

27, 2007). 

Ruediger, B; J. Claar; S. Gniadek; B. Holt; L. 

Lewis; S. Mighton; B. Naney; G. Patton; T. 

Rinaldi; J. Trick; A. Vandehey; F. Wahl; N. 

Warren; D. Wenger; A. Williamson. 2000. 

Canada lynx conservation assessment and 

strategy (LCAS). Publication Number R1-00-

53. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, and National 

Park Service. 142 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/re

ports/lcas.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

Rummer, R. 2006. Cumulative watershed effects 

of fuels management: a western synthesis. In: 

Forest operations for fuel treatment. Auburn, 

AL: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Southern Research Station: 1–11. 

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_ru

mmer015.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 343 

Russell, J.C.; P.A. Adams-Russell. 2004. Social 

assessment: Clearwater and Nez Perce 

National Forests. Adams-Russell Consulting, 

Placeville, CA: 234pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/cnpz/forest/news/as

sets/040420_soc_asmt_summary.doc. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Russell, J.C.; P.A. Adams-Russell. 2003. Social 

assessment for the Kootenai National Forest, 

update. Libby, MT: Kootenai National Forest. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/kootenai/projects

/planning/documents/soc_asses/2003/html

/ch1/index.shtml. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Sauer, J.R.; J.E. Hines; J. Fallon. 2005. The North 

American breeding bird survey, results and 

analysis 1966–2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, 

MD. http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Scott, J.M.; C.R. Peterson; J.W. Karl; E. Strand; 

L.K. Svancara; N.M. Wright. 2002. A GAP 

analysis of Idaho: final report. Moscow, ID: 

Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit. 

http://www.wildlife.uidaho.edu/idgap/idg

ap_report.asp. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Seyedbagheri, K.A. 1996. Idaho forestry best 

management practices: compilation of 

research on their effectiveness. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-GTR-339. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. p. 3. 

Shine, R.; M. Lemaster; M. Wall; T. Langkilde; 

R. Mason. 2004. Why did the snake cross the 

road? Effects of roads on movement and 

location of mates by garter snakes 

(Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis). Conservation 

Ecology. 9(1): 1–13. 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/is

s1/art9/. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-42, vol. 1. Ogden, Utah: U. S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 83 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_

1.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Smith, J.E.; L.S. Heath. 2004. Carbon stocks and 

projections on public forestlands in the 

United States, 1952–2040. Environmental 

Management .33(4): 433–442. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square

/publications/other_publishers/ne_2004_sm

ith002p.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Sorg, C.F.; L.J. Nelson. 1986. The net economic 

value of elk hunting in Idaho. Research 

Bulletin RM-12. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 21 p. 

Sorg, C.F.; J. Loomis. 1985. Economic value of 

Idaho sport fisheries with an update on 

valuation techniques. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. 6: 494–503. 

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere.

1996. The southern Appalachian assessment 

terrestrial technical report. Report 5 of 5. 

Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Southern Region. 288 p. 

http://samab.org/saa/reports/terrestrial/te

rrestrial.html. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Southern Methodist University. 2004.

Geothermal map of North America, 2004. 

http://www.smu.edu/geothermal/2004NA

Map/2004NAmap.htm . (Accessed October 

26, 2007.)

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of 

timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal 

of Hydrology. 176: 79–95. 

Steffan-Dewenter, I.; T. Tscharntke. 1999. 

Effects of habitat isolation on pollinator 

communities and seed set. Oecologia. 121: 

432–440. 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/69lt

eml6t74j8wwk/fulltext.pdf. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Stein, B.A.; L.S. Kutner; J.S. Adams. 2000. 

Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity 

in the United States. A joint project of The 

Nature Conservancy and the Association for 

Biodiversity Information. Oxford University 

Press, New York, NY. 399 p. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

344 References 

Stein, S.M.; R.J. Alig; E.M. White; S.J. Comas; M. 

Carr; M. Eley; K. Elverum; M. O’Donnell; 

D.M. Theobald; K. Cordell; J. Haber; T.W. 

Beauvais. 2007. National forests on the edge: 

development pressures on America's national 

forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 28 pp. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/28858 

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

Stein, S.M.; R.E. McRoberts; R.J. Alig; M.D. 

Nelson; D.M. Theobald; M. Eley; M. 

Dechter; M. Carr. 2005. Forests on the edge: 

housing development on America’s private 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-636. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 16 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/9841

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

Stolen, E.D. 2003. The effects of vehicle passage 

on foraging behavior of wading birds. 

Waterbirds. 26(4): 429–436. 

http://www.bioone.org/archive/1524-

4695/26/4/pdf/i1524-4695-26-4-429.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Story, M.; T. Dzomba. 2005. Smoke NEPA 

guidance: describing air resource impacts 

from prescribed fire on national forests and 

grasslands of Montana, Idaho, North Dakota 

and South Dakota in Regions 1 and 4. 

Missoula, MT. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 30 p. 

Swanston, D.N. 1991. Natural processes. In:

Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of forest and 

rangeland management on salmonid fishes 

and their habitats. Bethesda, MD: American 

Fisheries Society: 139–179. 

Tchebakova, N.M.; G.E. Rehfeldt; E.I. 

Parfenova. 2005. Impacts of climate change 

on the distribution of Larix spp. and Pinus

sylvestris and their climatypes in Siberia. 

Mitigating Adaptive Strategies Global 

Change. 11: 861–882. 

Thomas, C.D.; E.J. Bodsworth; R.J. Wilson; 

A.D. Simmons; Z.G. Davies; M. Musche; L. 

Conradt. 2001. Ecological and evolutionary 

processes at expanding range margins. 

Nature. 411: 577–581. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4

11/n6837/full/411577a0.html. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Trombulak, S.C.; C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of 

ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and 

aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. 

14(1): 18–30. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1523-

1739.2000.99084.x. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Turner, I.M.; K.S. Chua; J.S.Y. Ong; B.C. Soong; 

H.T.W. Tan. 1996. A century of plant species 

loss from isolated fragment of lowland 

tropical rain forest. Conservation Biology. 10: 

1229–1244. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1523-

1739.1996.10041229.x. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 2006 

[December]. Letter from Secretary of 

Agriculture Mark Rey to Governor Risch, 

accepting the Petition. 2 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/roadless/risch_r

esponse_1222.pdf (Accessed November 2, 

2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007 [April 10]. Roadless area 

conservation; National Forest System lands 

in Idaho: notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. Federal 

Register. 68 FR 17816. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/roadless/noi_fe

dreg_idaho_roadless_041007.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007a. Climate change and forest pests. 

Research and Development Briefing Paper, 

January 29, 2007. Unpublished report. 2 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/climate_chan

ge/pdf/CC_forest_pests_012907.pdf. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 345 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007b. Interactions of fire, carbon, 

atmosphere, and changing climate. Research 

and development briefing paper, February 8, 

2007. Unpublished report. 3 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/climate_

change/pdf/CC_fire_carbon_atmo_020807.p

df. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007c. The case for developing an 

agency-wide integrated response to global 

change and its effects on forest and range 

ecosystems. In: Leadership team meeting 

briefing paper, New Orleans, LA, April 24, 

2007: 1–2. Unpublished paper. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/docs/climatechange/national-briefing-papers.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007d. Climate change impacts on 

U.S. water resources. In: Leadership team 

meeting briefing paper, New Orleans, LA, 

April 24, 2007: 11–12. Unpublished paper. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/docs/climatechange/national-briefing-papers.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007e. Opportunities to increase 

carbon sequestration and reduce emissions 

for U.S. forest lands. In: Leadership team 

meeting briefing paper, New Orleans, LA, 

April 24, 2007: 5–6. Unpublished paper. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/docs/climatechange/national-briefing-papers.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007f. Strategic planning for climate 

change research and management. In: 

Leadership team meeting briefing paper, 

New Orleans, LA. April 24, 2007: 7–8. 

Unpublished paper. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/docs/climatechange/national-briefing-papers.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007g. Re-framing management 

strategies in the face of climate change. 

Leadership team meeting briefing paper, 

New Orleans, LA., April 24, 2007: 13–14. 

Unpublished paper. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/docs/climatechange/national-briefing-papers.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007h. Insect and disease risk map: a 

multi-criteria framework for producing local, 

regional, and national insect and disease 

maps. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technolo

gy/pdfs/threatsconf2006-krist-paper_v2.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007).

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007i. Intermountain Region cut and 

sold reports, 2002-2006. Unpublished report . 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007j. Northern Region timber 

program statistics, 2002-2006. Unpublished 

report. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007k. Infrastructure database. 

Unpublished report. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007l. Record of decision, Northern 

Rockies lynx management direction. Missoula, 

MT . National Forests in Montana and parts of 

Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. 77pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/repo

rts/rod/ROD_.pdf (Accessed November 2, 

2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007m. 36 part 220. National 

Environmental Policy Act procedures: notice of 

proposed rule. Federal Register. 72 FR 45998. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/nepa_proce

dures/includes/fr_2007_nepa_procedures.pdf

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007n. 36 Part 219. National Forest 

System land management planning; proposed 

rule. Federal Register. 72 FR 48514. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/n

oi_fr_051107.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007) 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

346 References 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007o. Loss of open space position 

paper. Washington Office. Unpublished report. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policyanalysis/loss-of-open-space-position-paper.pdf

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007p. Recreation facility master 

planning: action plan. Washington Office. 

Unpublished report. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs

/rfa/2300-rsfmp-rev-team-report-05-16-

2007.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007q. Grandmother Mountain land 

exchange, Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. October 2007. Coeur 

d’Alene ID: Idaho Panhandle National 

Forest. 142 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ipnf/eco/manage/ne

pa/sonepa/gmlex/gmle_dn.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2006. Land areas of the National 

Forest System. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/LAR0

6/lar06index.html. (Accessed October 26, 

2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2006a. Idaho forest health highlights 

2006. 

http://fhm.fs.fed.us/fhh/fhh_06/id/Idaho0

6.pdf. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2006b. FY 2000–2006 road 

accomplishment report. Unpublished report. 

Washington D.C. 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2006c. Final conservation strategy for 

the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone ecosystem. 

87 p. Unpublished report. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc/Cons

ervationStrategy/CS.htm (Accessed November 

2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2006d. Forest plan amendment for 

grizzly bear habitat conservation for the 

greater Yellowstone area national forests, 

executive summary for the final 

environmental impact statement. 32 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc/Sub

committee/yes/YEamend/EIS/01-

executive-summary.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2006e. Danskin land exchange. 

revised proposed action report, Boise 

National Forest. Boise, ID: Boise National 

Forest. 13 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/boise/projects/da

nskin-camas_proposed-action-report.pdf

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2006f. Special use data base (SUDs) 

authorization sorted by State. Unpublished 

report. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2005 [May 13]. Final rule and 

decision memo. Special Areas, State petitions 

for inventoried roadless area management. 

Federal Register. 70 FR 23653, part II, 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 36 

CFR Parts 294. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2005a. Idaho forest health highlights 

2005. Ogden, UT. 4p. 

http://www.fhm.fs.fed.us/fhh/fhh05/id/id_05.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2005b. 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261 

and 295 Travel management; designated 

routes and areas for motor vehicle use; final 

rule. Federal Register. 70 FR 68264. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2004 [July 16]. Notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comment: special 

areas; State petitions for inventoried roadless 

area management. Federal Register. 69 FR 

42636, part II, Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, 36 CFR Parts 294. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 347 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2004a. National strategy and 

implementation plan for invasive species 

management. 24 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publicati

ons/Invasive_Species.pdf. (Accessed October 

26, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2004b. Idaho forest health highlights 

2004. Ogden, UT. 2004. 

http://www.fhm.fs.fed.us/fhh/fhh04/id/id_04.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2004c. Intermountain Region 

proposed, endangered, threatened, and 

sensitive species, known/suspected 

distribution by forest. Unpublished report on 

file at: Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 23 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2004d. Region 1, sensitive plant list 

for Idaho. Unpublished report on file at: 

Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 3 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2004e. National forest visitor use 

monitoring program national project results 

January 2000 through September 2003. 

Washington, DC: Washington Office. 10 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs

/nvum/national_report_final_draft.pdf

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2004f. Lewis and Clark on the Lolo 

Trail. Clearwater National Forest. 20 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/clearwater/Lewis

Clark/Assets/lolo_trail_corridor.pdf

(Accessed November 2, 2007 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2004g. Record of decision, forest 

plan amendments for motorized access 

within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly 

bear recovery zones. Idaho Panhandle, 

Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests 90 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2003. Final environmental impact 

statement for the Caribou National Forest 

revised forest plan. Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest. p. 3–130. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/cariboutarghee/projects/caribou_plan/index.shtml. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2001 [Jan. 12]. Special areas; roadless 

area conservation; final rule. Federal 

Register. 66 FR 3244, part VI, Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, 36 CFR Part 294. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/rule/r

oadless_fedreg_rule.pdf. (Accessed October 

26, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2001a. Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, request for comment . National 

Forest System land and resource management 

planning; special areas, roadless area 

conservation. 36 CFR parts 219 and 294. 35918–

35920.http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/an

pr.html. (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2001b. Forest Service energy 

implementation plan. Unpublished report , 9 

p. http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/fseip.pdf

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000. Roadless rule final EIS, Forest 

Service roadless area conservation final EIS, 

volumes 1, 2, and 3. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000a. Biological evaluation 

specialist report for Forest Service roadless 

area conservation final EIS. Unpublished 

report. 90 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/Final_biological_evaluation.PDF

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000b. Final regulatory flexibility 

analysis for the roadless area conservation 

rule specialist report for the Forest Service 

roadless area conservation final EIS. 

Unpublished report. 58 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/xfrfa_clearance.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

348 References 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000c. Fuel management and fire 

suppression specialist report for the roadless 

area conservation rule for the Forest Service 

roadless area conservation final EIS. 

Unpublished report . 137 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/xfire_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000d. Forest management specialist 

report for the roadless area conservation rule for 

the Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. Unpublished report. 48 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/specr

ep/xforveg_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed November 2, 

2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000e. Landscape analysis and 

biodiversity specialist report for the roadless 

area conservation rule for the Forest Service 

roadless area conservation final EIS. 

Unpublished report . 52 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/xlandscape_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000f. Minerals and geology 

specialist report for the roadless area 

conservation rule for the Forest Service 

roadless area conservation final EIS. 

Unpublished report. 21 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/xmineral_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000g. Physical resources specialist 

report for the roadless area conservation rule for 

the Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. Unpublished report. 68 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/specr

ep/xphys_res_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed November 

2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000h. Real estate specialist report 

for the roadless area conservation rule for the 

Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. 15 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/real_estate_mgmt.PDF (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000i. Recreation and special uses 

specialist report for the roadless area 

conservation rule for the Forest Service 

roadless area conservation final EIS. 

Unpublished report. 35 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/xrec_spec_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000j. Regulatory impact analysis 

for the roadless area conservation rule 

conservation rule specialist report for the 

Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. Unpublished report. 108 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/xria_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000k. Roads specialist report for 

the Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. Unpublished report.42 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/Roads_Spec_Report.PDF (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000l. Scenic quality specialist report for 

the Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. Unpublished report. 15 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/specr

ep/xscenic_qual_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000m. Socioeconomic specialist report 

for the Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. Unpublished report .142 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/specr

ep/socioecon_specialist_entire.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000n. Terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats and species specialist report for the 

Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. Unpublished report, 130 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/xbio_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 349 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000o. Wilderness and special 

designated areas specialist report for the 

Forest Service roadless area conservation 

final EIS. Unpublished report, 23 p. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/s

pecrep/xwild_desig_spec_rpt.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000p. Forest Service roadless area 

conservation final EIS, volumes 1, 2, and 3. 

Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/

(Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000q. Protecting people and 

sustaining resources in a fire-adapted 

ecosystem: a cohesive strategy—the Forest 

Service management response to the General 

Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-

65. August 2000. Washington, DC. 85 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/2000/co

hesive_strategy10132000.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2000r. H. Gucinski and M. Furniss, 

eds. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific 

information. Washington, DC. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/scien

ce.pdf . (Accessed October 26, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 1999. Heritage—it's about time! a 

national strategy. Washington, DC: 

Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness 

Resource Management. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs

/heritage/heritage_strategy.shtml (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 1999b. Roads analysis: informing 

decisions about managing the national forest 

transportation system. Miscellaneous Report 

FS-643. Washington, DC. 222p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/road_mgt/DOCSr

oad-analysis.shtml (Accessed November 2, 

2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 1996. Landscape aesthetics: a 

handbook for scenery management. 

Washington, DC. 

http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/Resour

ces/Collections/Collection.2005-01-18.4830. 

(Accessed October 26, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy 

(INFISH). Decision notice/finding of no 

significant impact, environmental 

assessment; interim strategies for managing 

fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon 

and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, 

and portions of Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 1995a. Final environmental impact 

statement for the management of the redcockaded woodpecker and its habitat on 

national forests in the Southern Region, vol. 

II, manage. Bulletin R8-MB 73. Atlanta, GA: 

Southern Region, Regional Office. 192 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 1986. 1986. ROS book: recreation, 

heritage, and wilderness resources. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 1974. National forest landscape 

management, vol. 2, ch. 1, the visual mgmt 

system: recreation, heritage, and wilderness 

resources. Washington, DC. 45p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service; U.S. Department of Commerce 

[USDC], National Marine Fisheries Service; 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], 

Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

[EPA]; Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest 

ecosystem management: an ecological, 

economic, and social assessment. U.S. 

Government Printing Office 1993-793-071. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDI]. 2000. National fire plan. Managing the 

impact of wildfire on communities and the 

environment. September 8, 2000. 17 p. 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/NFP/

overview.shtml (Accessed November 2, 2007) 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

350 References 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDI], Bureau of Land Management. 2006 

[September 2]. Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest, ID, WY and UT, Caribou oil and gas 

leasing EIS notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. Federal 

Register. 70 FR 52630. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDI], Bureau of Land Management. 2004.

The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy 

Forests Restoration Act, interim field guide. 

FS-799. 58 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/fieldguide/ (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDI], Bureau of Land Management. 2000. 

Interior Columbia basin ecosystem 

management project supplemental draft 

environmental impact statement, vol. 1. 

Portland, OR. 92 p. 

http://www.icbemp.gov/pdfs/sdeis/Volume

1/Volume1.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDI], Bureau of Land Management. 1995.

Decision notice/decision record, finding of no 

significant impact, and environmental 

assessment for the interim strategies for 

managing anadromous fish-producing 

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, 

Idaho, and portions of California. (PACFISH). 

Washington, DC. 206 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDI], Bureau of Land Management, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 

the National Association of State Foresters 

and the National Association of Counties. 

2003. Memorandum of understanding for the 

development of a collaborative fuels 

treatment program. USFS Agreement #03-

MU-11132001-023. Washington, D.C. 5 p. 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/reso

urces/documents/9-21-en.pdf (Accessed 

November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of Commerce [USDC], 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2006 [January 5]. 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 Endangered and 

threatened species: final listing 

determinations for 10 distinct population 

segments of west coast steelhead; final rule. 

Federal Register. 71 FR 834. 

U.S. Department of Commerce [USDC], 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2005a [June 28].

Endangered and threatened species: final 

listing determinations for 16 ESUs of west 

coast salmon, and final 4(d) protective 

regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs. 

Federal Register. 70 FR 37160. 

U.S. Department of Commerce [USDC], 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 2005b [September 

2]. Endangered and threatened species: 

designation of critical habitat for 12 

evolutionary significant units of west coast 

salmon and steelhead in Washington, 

Oregon and Idaho. Federal Register. 70 FR 

52630. 

U.S. Department of Commerce [USDC], 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 1992.[December 

2]. 50 CFR Parts 227. Endangered and 

threatened species; threatened status for 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook 

salmon, and Snake River fall Chinook 

salmon. Federal Register. 57 FR 57051. 

U.S. Department of Commerce [USDC], 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 1992a [April 22]. 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 Endangered and 

threatened species; designation critical 

habitat; Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake 

River spring/summer Chinook salmon, and 

Snake River fall Chinook salmon. Federal 

Register. 57 FR 14653. 

U.S. Department of Commerce [USDC], 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]. 1991 [November 

20]. Endangered and threatened species: 

endangered status for Snake River sockeye 

salmon. Federal Register. 56 FR 58619. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 351 

U.S. Department of Energy; U.S. Department 

of the Interior [USDI], Bureau of Land 

Management; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service. 2005 

[September 28]. Notice of intent to prepare a 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement; amend relevant agency land use 

plans, conduct public scoping meetings, and 

notice of floodplain and wetlands 

involvement. Federal Register. 70 FR 56647. 

http://corridoreis.anl.gov/documents/inde

x.cfm. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Bureau 

of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

National Park Service; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture [USDA], Forest Service. 2006. 

Protecting people and natural resources: a 

cohesive fuels treatment strategy. 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/reso

urces/documents/CFTS_03-03-06.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Bureau 

of Land Management. 2007. LR2000 

database; June 2007. 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007. Smoky Canyon mine, panels 

F&G, final EIS, executive summary. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/cariboutarghee/phosphate/smoky_canyon_mine_fe

is_index.shtm. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture [USDA], Forest 

Service. 2007a. Notice of intent to prepare a 

programmatic environmental impact 

statement for leasing of geothermal 

resources. Federal Register. 72 FR 113 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 2006. 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; critical habitat designation for the 

Kootenai River population of white sturgeon. 

Federal Register. 71 FR 6383.

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr3742.p

df (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 2005 [September 26]. 

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; critical habitat 

designation for the Klamath River and 

Columbia River distinct population segments 

of bull trout. Federal Register. 70 FR 56212. 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 1998. 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; determination of threatened status for 

the Klamath River and Columbia River 

distinct population segments of bull trout. 

Federal Register. 63 FR 31647. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr3264.p

df (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 1998a [July 8]. 

Proposal to list the contiguous United States 

distinct population segment of the Canada 

lynx; proposed rule. Federal Register: 63 FR 

36993. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/f

r3279.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 1994. 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; determination of threatened status for 

the Kootenai River population of white 

sturgeon. Federal Register. 59 FR 45989. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/f

r2678.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 1992 [January 3]. 50 

CFR Part 17. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; listing of the Snake River 

sockeye salmon as endangered. Federal 

Register. 57 FR 212. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr1995.p

df (Accessed November 2, 2007)

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery plan 

for the Florida scrub jay, southeast region, 

Atlanta, GA. 23 p. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/90

0509.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007) 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 1976 (revised 1985). 

Kirtland’s warbler recovery plan. Twin 

Cities, MN. 78 p. 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

352 References 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], 

Geological Survey and Bureau of Land 

Management. 2002. Environmental 

assessment for leasing of geothermal 

resources managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management Carson City Field Office. EANV-030-02-021. 

http://www.nv.blm.gov/carson/Planning_

Env_Coord/Geothermal/documents/Final_

EA_Geothermal_Leasing.pdf. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], 

Geological Survey. 2006 [September]. The 

national map LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE rapid 

assessment fire regimes layer. 

http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], 

Geological Survey. 2002. Western phosphate 

field, U.S.A.: science in support of land 

management. Fact sheet FS-100-02. Melno 

Park, CA. U.S. Geological Survey 2p. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-100-02/FS-100-

02-508.pdf (Accessed November 2, 2007). 

U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], 

Geological Survey. 1996. 1995 national 

assessment of United States oil and gas 

resources. Digital Data Series DDS-30, DDS35, DDS-36. 

http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/offsho

re/na/na95ocsreport.htm. (Accessed October 

27, 2007). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 

1998. Ground water rule: ground water 

microbial occurrence studies. Washington, 

DC: Office of Ground Water and Drinking 

Water. 

http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/standard/

occur.html. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Van Kirk, R.W.; S.L. Hill. 2006. Modeling 

predicts trout population response to 

selenium. Unpublished report on file at: 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition, 162 N. 

Woodruff Ave., Idaho Falls, ID 83401. 

http://www.greateryellowstone.org/media

/pdf/van-kirk_selenium_report.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Waller, J.S.; C. Servheen. 2005. Effects of 

transportation infrastructure on grizzly bears 

in northwestern Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 69(3): 985–1000. 

http://www.bioone.org/archive/0022-

541X/69/3/pdf/i0022-541X-69-3-985.pdf. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Walther, G.R.; E. Post; P. Convey; A. Menzel; C. 

Parmesan; T.J.C. Beebee; J.M. Fromentin; 

O.H. Hoegh-Guldberg; F. Bairlein. 2002. 

Ecological responses to recent climate 

change. Nature. 416: 389–395. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4

16/n6879/full/416389a.html. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Weisbrod, B. 1964. Collective-consumption 

services of individual consumption goods. 

Quarterly Journal of Economics. 78: 471–477. 

http://www.jstor.org/view/00335533/di951

777/95p0189j/0. (Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Wemple, B. C.; J.A. Jones; G.E. Grant. 1996. 

Channel network extension by logging roads 

in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. 

Water Resources Bulletin. 32(6): 1195–1207. 

http://www.humboldt.edu/~storage/pdfmi

ll/Batch%203/channel.pdf. (Accessed 

October 27, 2007). 

Wesolowski, T.; D. Czeszczewik; P. Rowinski. 

2005. Effects of forest management on threetoed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus

distribution in the Bialowieza Forest (NE 

Poland): conservation implications. Acta 

Ornithologica. 40(1): 53–60. 

Westerling, A.L.; H. G. Hidalgo; D. R. Cayan; 

T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increases western U.S. forest wildfire 

activity. Science. 313 (5789): 940. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f

ull/313/5789/940. (Accessed October 27, 

2007).

Wiens, J.D.; B.R. Noon; R.T. Reynolds. 2006. 

Post-fledging survival of northern goshawks: 

the importance of prey abundance, weather, 

and dispersal. Ecological Applications. 16(1): 

406–418. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs

_2006_wiens_j001.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

References 353 

Wilcock, C.C.; R. Neiland. 2002. Pollination 

failure in plants: why it happens and when it 

matters. Trends in Plant Science. 7: 270–277. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?

cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1204

9924&dopt=Abstract. (Accessed October 27, 

2007). 

Wisdom, M.J.; R.S. Holthausen; B.K. Wales; 

C.D. Hargis; V.A. Saab; D.C. Lee; W.J. 

Hann; T.D. Rich; M.M. Rowland; W J. 

Murphy; M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats 

for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the 

interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends 

and management implications. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-485. 3 vols. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/. 

(Accessed October 27, 2007). 

Woodbury, P.B.; J.E. Smith; L.S. Health. 2007. 

Carbon sequestration in the U.S. forest sector 

from 1990 to 2010. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 241: 14–27. 

http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_20

07_woodbury_001.pdf. (Accessed October 27, 

2007).
Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Idaho DEIS References 

354 References